Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 27 November 2006 (45th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLV No. 30)
2006-11-27
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 27, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 30
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans;
the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for
the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of
Topsail.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ascension
Collegiate Senior Girls' Volleyball Team of Bay Roberts who won Gold when the
Newfoundland and Labrador Volleyball Association hosted VolleyFest in St. John's
recently.
Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Volleyball Association is the
governing body for the sport in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The
association was incorporated in 1986 as a nonprofit organization and is managed
by an elected seven member executive committee.
Members of the Ascension Collegiate Senior Girls' Volleyball Gold Medal
Team include: Samantha Mercer, Emily Dawe, Ally Fewer, Jana Dawe, Maggie Cole,
Vanessa Hayes, Samantha March, Maura Hayes, Alyson Wheeler, April Petten, Nikki
Ezekiel, Courtney Norman, Erin Simms and they were accompanied by their coach,
Derrick March and assistant coach, Glen Lane.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating Ascension Collegiate Senior Girls' Volleyball Team on winning
Gold at the recent VolleyFest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of
Nathan McDonald of Bishop's Falls. Nathan is twelve years old and a super
champ.
Mr. Speaker, a super champ is a person with multiple amputees.
In August of this year, Nathan travelled to Ottawa to participate in a war
amp sponsored seminar. This particular event placed emphasis on children missing
three or more limbs.
Mr. Speaker, Nathan is a member of Jumpstart, a program that is committed to
making sure that super champs have access to educational software and its
long-term objective is employment opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, Nathan has faced many challenges and knows that being a multiple
amputee is not a barrier to living independently. In the past, this young man
has conducted seminars in schools and other organized community events. This
year Nathan enrolled in the 512 Air Cadet Squadron and is presently trying out
for the junior basketball.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in
congratulating Nathan McDonald on his achievements and being a real super champ.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate eleven Legionnaires with the Royal
Canadian Legion Branch 12 in Grand Falls-Windsor, who were recently honoured
with receiving the United Kingdom Veterans Badges.
Mr. Speaker, the badge was first launched in May, 2004 by the British
Parliament in recognition of the many heroic acts and scarifies that veterans
have made. The intention was that it would be made available to all First and
Second World War veterans who, under the Heroes Return scheme, would travel back
to the battlefronts where they had fought. Due to its popularity, eligibility
was quickly extended to include all Second World War veterans and those who had
served any time up to December 31, 1959.
The eleven members of Branch 12, Grand Falls-Windsor, who were honoured with
the United Kingdom Veterans Badges were: Frank Baker, Reverend Ray Cole, Jim
Day, Eric Dwyer, Ken House, Ed Hudson, Fred Ivany, Mac Locke, Harvey Matthews,
Ray Rendell, and Bob Rideout.
In addition, service medals were presented to Reverend Ray Cole, Eric Dwyer,
Ray Rendell and Bob Rideout for sixty years service, and to Frank Baker and
Lewis Mulrooney for fifty years service with Branch 12.
Also, Legion Meritorious Service Medals were presented Jim Day and Sterling
Thomas and the Past President medal was presented to Ed Fewer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 12 members in Grand
Falls-Windsor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge
the achievement of the Phoenix Academy Raiders Volleyball Team. This very
talented boys squad from Carmanville recently claimed top spot at the
Newfoundland and Labrador's Volleyball Association's Volleyfest 2006.
The boys were the defending gold medal champions heading into this year's
tournament and in true championship form, they went undefeated en route to
capturing their second straight Senior A title. The competition featured fifteen
teams and provided some exceptional sporting entertainment as the best squads
from across the Province faced off in this annual event.
The Raiders are also the defending 4A high school boys volleyball champions
and will look to retain that title later in the season. The recent
accomplishments of the team are made all the more impressive, considering they
started their winning streak without a home court to call their own.
A devastating fire that razed the Carmanville School Complex in 2004 resulted
in the Raiders beginning their championship march while attending Riverwood
Academy at Wings Point. They have now returned to their home court and they have
done so in style - with another gold medal performance. I am sure this
exceptional group will continue to adorn their new facility with many
championship banners in the years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the
Phoenix Academy Raiders on their recent gold medal result.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate the recipients of the Electoral District
Scholarships Awards for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.
The Electoral District Scholarships have a value of $1,000 each and are
awarded to some of the best and brightest students across the Province.
Mr. Speaker, John Prosser, son of Gertie and Richard Prosser, received the
award for high academic achievement at St. James Regional High, Port aux
Basques. Gina Billard, daughter of Melvin and Joyce Billard, received the award
for high academic achievement at Burgeo Academy, Burgeo. Christopher Hardy, son
of Terry and Doreen Hardy, and Emily-Ann Munden, daughter of Brian and Dianne
Munden, received the award for high academic achievement at Grandy's River
Collegiate, Burnt Islands.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating John Prosser, Gina Billard, Christopher Hardy and Emily-Ann
Munden upon receiving their Electoral Scholarship Awards.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, each November, I have the pleasure of attending the annual
general meeting of the Manuels River Natural Heritage Society, which is an
organization dedicated to the conservation and protection of the Manuels River
system.
Mr. Speaker, the Manuels River runs through the Town of Conception Bay South.
In 1989, the Manuels River Natural Heritage Society was established to preserve
and interpret the natural, cultural and geological history of the river. Since
then, the Manuels River Linear Park has been established and it has become a
recreational area for the Town of Conception Bay South and a major tourist
attraction for this region of the Province.
Worthy of note are the internationally recognized geological formations and
fossils, which many geology students of Memorial University, past and present,
including myself, have had the benefit of studying. Six kilometres of walking
trails on the north and south side of the Manuels River are also enjoyed by
residents and tourists alike.
Mr. Speaker, the Manuels River Linear Park is a world-class park and is
recognized as a major tourist attraction in the Town of Conception Bay South.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Gary
Gallagher and his new board of directors, and all former directors of the
Manuels River Natural Heritage Society, for their contribution to the
conservation and protection of the Manuels River system.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have been asked to make this statement on behalf of my colleague, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to provide an update to hon. members on the final
phase of planned reductions to the Municipal Operating Grants of fourteen of our
largest cities and towns. An official announcement was made earlier today.
When we formed the government three years ago, we had to make some difficult
decisions. Included in those hard choices was the decision to reduce Municipal
Operating Grants to the larger municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, despite the need to get our fiscal house in order, we recognized
that we could not apply reductions to Municipal Operating Grants across the
board. Due to demographic challenges, many small and rural towns did not have
the capacity to withstand a reduction to their operating grants.
There were, however, fourteen municipalities that were experiencing growth in
their tax bases. Assessment data showed there was an increase in assessed
property values in these municipalities which demonstrated potential for
increase in taxation revenue, and less need for reliance on financial support
from government to provide municipal services.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend sincere thanks and appreciation to the
cities and towns that have worked with us these past two years and who have done
their part to help the Province turn the corner on its fiscal challenges. While
these municipalities continue to show levels of growth, government is cognizant
of the cost of municipal services.
While we still have a way to go, the Province's fiscal house is in much
better shape. This improvement in our fiscal capacity allows me to announce that
we are eliminating the planned final phase of reductions to the Municipal
Operating Grants to those fourteen cities and towns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this announcement means that those
municipalities will have an extra $1.4 million in their fiscal framework for
next year to provide services to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Colleagues, it is difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. the minister, and
I ask members for their co-operation. The minister is making a Ministerial
Statement, and I ask him if he would continue.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government recognizes that municipalities have a critical role in the
provision of front line services in this Province. We remain committed to
providing major funding supports to all municipalities through our various
capital works programs, through our Municipal Operating Grants, and through our
active pursuit of federal funding supports.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of the announcement.
Normally, I try to be as positive as I can when announcements are made, but
in this particular case there needs to be something said.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister announced some time ago that they
were going to decrease the amounts of money given to the larger municipalities
in the Province. Today, the government has announced that they are not going to
take the final quarter from the larger towns.
What I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government do, is to take the
amount that has been saved on the larger municipalities - if they have been able
to survive - and give it to the smaller communities. The smaller rural
communities in this Province are really, Mr. Speaker, reeling.
Today, before I got the statement, I happened to pick up a paper and I saw a
particular example of what I am talking about, in the Town of Bird Cove. This is
what is says: The person, Mr. May, who joined the council last year to make a
quota, now he is by himself and he says he feels like the little Dutch boy with
his finger in the dike.
They are in a situation in Bird Cove which is no different from any other
municipality. They do not have the money. They have particular households here
that need $440,000 to hook up forty-four homes. The most that they can get,
according to the member here, is 30 per cent.
I know, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, many times, not only for
people on this side but on the other side as well, we financed as much as 95 per
cent of that particular infrastructure need so that the communities could afford
it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. LANGDON: These municipalities do need it.
You know, the fact is that the City of St. John's and the City of Mount
Pearl might be able to withstand this particular amount of money that was taken
from them, but as a gesture - I am serious when I say that - these small
municipalities across the Province, hundreds of them, should be given extra
funding so that they do not find themselves in the situation that Bird Cove does
and many of the communities around, where they will not be able to maintain the
infrastructure that they have, much less of trying to give the basic needs of
water and sewer to people who do not already have it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advanced copy. I, too, join with my colleague in
stating that I am sure the large municipalities are very pleased with getting
this break, but I am not aware of anything publicly being said by them to
government saying that they needed this break, so I wonder why government
decided to do this. If the small municipalities and rural towns did not have the
capacity when this decision was made to make the cuts to have a reduction
themselves, I am sure they have even less capacity now than they had then
because they are losing their tax base at a much faster rate than anybody else.
The large municipalities, as far as I can see, are not losing a major tax base
but the smaller communities are, and their condition now is much worse than it
was when the original decision was made.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
Leave is granted.
MS MICHAEL: Just to add, I hope the government is going to have as much
compassion for the smaller rural communities as it seems to be having for the
larger municipalities who do not need compassion.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to inform this hon.
House about a new partnership to promote literacy in our Province.
The Department of Education has provided the Rotary Club with $10,000 to
expand the hugely successful Rotary-Read-Along beyond the Northeast Avalon to
other areas of the Province. Since its inception in 2003, the program has seen
volunteer Rotarians and community leaders read to more than 5,000 children. It
has also provided $60,000 worth of books to school libraries - books that
feature provincial content, and local authors and illustrators.
Mr. Speaker, literacy promotion requires the dedication of government,
business and community partnerships. Programs must reach those most in need and
much respond to individual challenges.
The funding for the Rotary-Read-Along builds on significant investments this
government is already making in literacy. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report
that there is $1.3 million more being spent on literacy grants and programs
today than when we first formed government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: As a result, literacy programming, including Adult Basic
Education, is available in a greater number of locations and therefore to a
greater number of people.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, government is working to develop and nurture an
environment which promotes literacy for all people. Working with partners like
the Rotary Club, we can cultivate a culture of learning which is critical for
our self-reliance and economic growth. We can help create a generation of
readers with ideas, talent and determination for success.
It is unfortunate that the federal government has decided to reduce funding
to local literacy projects, and I have been actively lobbying both the minister
responsible for literacy and our provincial MPs to reinstate the funding that
has been cut, and I will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker. I am not prepared for
the federal government to walk away from their responsibilities.
We will remain unwavering in our support of literacy promotion, Mr. Speaker,
because there should be no barriers to learning.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess Mr. Russell Wangersky must be very proud today, after his
article in
the paper on Friday talking about the polling periods, after this announcement.
Mr. Speaker, I would say thank God for people like the Rotary Club, to know
that they are involved in this Rotary-Read-Along for quite a period of time and
investing money into it.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, it does not say much for the leadership of
this government when it comes to literacy. Just think back to what they did when
they took office. There was a good program, Read and Succeed, and they cancelled
that program. They cancelled it, and by cancelling that program they destroyed
19,000 T-shirts and literature that was paid for by the federal government with
regards to illiteracy. Mr. Speaker, it was done for no other reason, only
political reasons. I say to the minister, she is talking about keeping the
federal government's feet to the fire on illiteracy, I say to her, she should
put more money into the program and to help -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MR. BUTLER: Just a few seconds to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I say she should put their feet to the fire.
They were always talking about our cousins in Ottawa, I would say her cousins in
Ottawa have been a total failure and they should put more money into such
programs, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, thanks to the minister for the advanced copy. I, too, am pleased,
sure, to see money going to the Rotary Club. I know this is a good project, I
know it is a good program, but I, too, am concerned that the lobbying may be
going on - and I am glad to hear that it is and I hope that it is as active as
the minister is saying - but what if the lobbying does not work? I think
government already has to be putting a second plan in place. They have to look
at picking up what has been lost because of the federal cuts, because those are
community-based programs that are doing exceptional work and they have to stay.
They are not replacing the adult basic education that goes on in the
institutions. They are in the community and run by the communities and
government has to come up with the money to replace them.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, last week I raised questions regarding the cost associated with
the Premiers' conference that was held in our Province during the summer.
During questioning I referenced excessive expenditures, like $8,000 for sealskin
fur coats for Ralph Klein and his wife, $105,000 worth of gifts to the premiers
and their guests, $100,000 on sightseeing tours that provided beverages of
various sorts to the premiers and their guests, but I forgot to mention, what I
found out later, that our taxpayers spent $200,000 on one night at the St. John's
Convention Centre to provide a meal, free booze and entertainment to the
premiers and their guests.
I ask the Premier: Do you feel that $200,000 is excessive, considering much
of that money was spent on booze and entertainment, and were there any other
issues or needs out there that could have been better addressed by this
investment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: First of all, Mr. Speaker - and the Premier alluded to
it last week - corporate sponsorships and corporate sponsors donated
approximately $500,000 to the total cost. We had the Intergovernmental Affairs
Secretariat, Mr. Speaker, that contributed approximately $125,000. The total
expenditure to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was between $450,000
and $500,000. That included, Mr. Speaker, some 350, between 300 and 400
delegates, who spent several days here in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The Council of the Confederation meeting is held in each Province once, Mr.
Speaker, every ten years, and our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador, is the Chair of the Council of the Confederation. Mr. Speaker, he was
proud, and as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we were proud that we could
welcome so many distinguished guests to our shores during the summer of 2006.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister referenced the fact that these people were in the Province for
four or five days. The Premier, last week, talked about the spinoffs associated
with the fact that they were in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we paid for their travel once they were in the Province, and
from Corner Brook to St. John's. We paid for their accommodations. We paid for
their entertainment. We paid for their food. We paid for their booze. We even
went as far as giving them gifts to take home so that they did not have to go
out and purchase anything.
What I would like to ask is: What else could we have given these people that
you may have forgotten?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks as
if this is something new. In this country it is a tradition. Many years ago
there were Premiers' Conferences that were held each and every year. During
the last number of years, the Council of the Federation were formed. There were
meetings in Niagara-on-the-Lake in Ontario. There were meetings in
Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island. There was a meeting in Banff, in
Alberta. This year it was in the capital of our Province, in St. John's,
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing unusual about this.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, in St. John's -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible) Corner Brook as well. The Humber Valley
Resort was also a venue and, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we were proud
to welcome these distinguished people to our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have to laugh, because we welcome these individuals here as well, and we
are only too happy to have them. The problem I have is when we try to outdo rich
Alberta by spending more on them when they got here than they actually spent.
Mr. Speaker, to change gears a little here, last week the Minister of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and the Premier both stated that the
university would save millions as a result of this new fibre optic line, this
new fibre optic deal. We then learned, later in the week, that they will save
nothing because the federal government picks up MUN's cost for Internet
access.
I ask the Premier: If the federal government is going to save millions from
this fibre optic line, why are they refusing to invest in this project? What is
their reason for not investing in this project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition is selective in the
information that is provided to him, selective in his retention.
The fact of the matter is, the federal government pays for the advanced
research network that Memorial University participates in, the Canarie network
as it is referred to. Memorial University can only afford, as a result or that,
or the Canarie network can only afford, to provide Memorial University with a
less than optimum connection to the advanced research network. As a result, Mr.
Speaker, in order for us to enable Memorial University to access the CA*net 4 or
CA*net 5 levels of the Canarie network, there would be an additional cost to
Memorial and/or the Province in order to be able to access that.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, while the federal government contributes to the
cost of the Canarie network, the fact of the matter is, that is only one aspect
of Memorial University's connect to Internet and fibre optics, Mr. Speaker.
There is an equivalent, if not greater, amount of cost associated with Memorial
University's additional fibre optic connection -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister pretends that he is the fountain of all knowledge, but he still
did not answer the question: Why didn't the federal government contribute to
this project?
Mr. Speaker, in our briefing this morning with officials from the minister's
department, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, we were
told that there were other companies out there who could have bid on this fibre
optic deal or project. We were also told that it was the companies themselves,
Persona and Rogers, who told this government that they were the only ones who
could bid; therefore, there was no need for a Request For Proposals.
I ask the Premier: Why didn't you issue a tender or a Request For Proposals
to ensure every company had equal opportunity to bid? Why did you rely simply on
Persona and Rogers as the only option?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government did not participate because - and, first
of all, I have to correct his inaccuracies before I get around to answering his
question. If Question Period was long enough, I could actually answer him.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the federal government did
not participate because the Industry Canada fund that funded fibre optic
connections throughout Canada was exhausted, Mr. Speaker. The only other option
was the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund and that, Mr. Speaker, had $11
million left in the pot, which we can very easily use on roads, municipal
infrastructure and what have you.
Mr. Speaker, there is never enough money going to come from the federal
government to fund all of the strategic infrastructure that we want to spend
money on in Newfoundland and Labrador. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it did not have
anything to do with Rogers or Persona saying who might come in or who might not
come in.
The fact of the matter is, EWA did an assessment of this proposal. They came
back in black and white, which was provided to them, provided to the House,
provided to the public, provided to the media, provided to everybody who wanted
to see it, Mr. Speaker, provided -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I just ask this: If you are going to -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the minister has about ten seconds to complete his answer.
The Chair recognizes the minister, to complete his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, EWA said that there were only a
limited number of operations that could participate in this. They said the
consortium, Aliant, the federal government or the provincial government were the
only viable participants in this fibre optic connection, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I suggest again, as I did last week, that he go
back and brief his officials in the department, because his officials told us
this morning there were other groups out there who could have bid on this
contract.
Mr. Speaker, many questions continue to exist related to this fibre optic
deal. In a speech delivered to the St. John's Board of Trade in April, 1995,
our current Premier, when he was owner of Cable Atlantic, expressed his dislike
for Newfoundland Telephone and Bell Canada. In his speech, the Premier states,
and I quote, "...the Information Highway in Newfoundland and Labrador will
become the highway to BELL or the highway to HELL. There is no difference."
It is obvious that he had a great deal of dislike for this company at this
time.
I ask the Premier: By using taxpayers' money to subsidize your business
associates to compete with Aliant, is this your way of finally getting even?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just say this to the Leader of the Opposition: That may well have been
the way that they conducted business when they were in government, Mr. Speaker,
but it is absolutely not the way that we pursue business when we are in
government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, we have made a $15 million
investment into a fibre optic link between us and the rest of the world, Mr.
Speaker. The fact of the matter is, we have an asset, Mr. Speaker. We have fibre
optic strands, or we will have fibre optic strands when this is completed. It
will enable us to have a connection with the outside world. It will enable
further business development in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will allow for the
advancement of research, Mr. Speaker. It will allow for the advancement of
business attraction in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will enable us to build on
our health care, Mr. Speaker. It will allow our educational facilities to
participate like every other educational facility in North America, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: That is the fact of the matter, and they do not want to hear
it, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Web site for the Department of Business
clearly states that government will not assist companies that compete and take
business away from existing companies. The infusion of $15 million of taxpayers'
money into a consortium that will obviously be competing against another
telecommunications company in the Province is contrary to government policy.
I ask the Minister of Business: Why is government breaking its own
guidelines?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to correct the hon.
member, that we are not putting any money in other companies. We are actually
buying two fibre optic lines, two fibres, which will put us in a great spot in
regards to addressing government services and addressing the cost to government.
Also, this deal, from the perspective of the Department of Business, opens up
a whole array of business opportunities in regards to attraction to this
Province. That is exactly what it does. To reiterate what my hon. colleague
said, it opens up a total array - as was referenced in regards to the REM, we
were told, we were screened out, absolutely screened out, because we only had
one provider. That is all we were, one provider, one provider only. When it
comes to the shopping list from businesses that may very well come into this -
they have a shopping list. They might have concerns in health, they might
concerns in regards to education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Time is scarce and the Chair always operates under the assumption that there
are always more questions than there is time to give the answers. I ask members
on both sides to be co-operative, then we can get in as many questions as we
can.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister has no idea what he is
talking about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS FOOTE: On an Open Line show recently, the Minister of Business could
not answer the question regarding the amount of savings the government will
realize from this investment of $15 million. He said he would have to check with
the Department of Finance.
I ask the Minister of Business: Did you check with the Department of Finance,
and could you tell us where the savings will come from and just how much the
government will save?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the cost savings associated with this project have been -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Colleagues will know that it is the right of the members who sit opposite to
ask a question, it is also the right of the government to decide who answers the
question. Therefore, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and
Rural Development. I ask all members for their co-operation.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the office of the Chief Information Officer and
the office of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development have been thoroughly
engaged in assessing the cost associated with the fibre optic connection to
Newfoundland and Labrador in the past, in the present and in the future.
Mr. Speaker, our offices have done a thorough assessment of this. As well, we
have contracted outside interests, like EWA, like PriMetrica and others who have
done an assessment of the cost in other jurisdictions and how they have changed
when competition has arisen. We are confident, based on the outside analysis and
the internal analysis, that there will be substantial savings in the order of 50
per cent associated with this investment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last week we had the Premier pinch-hitting for the
Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and now we have the Minister
of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development pinch-hitting for the Minister of
Business.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development said the business advisory board had input into the decision to give
this contract to Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream. Dean McDonald, CEO of
Persona, and Paul Hatcher, CEO of Persona, both were appointed to the board by
the Premier.
Minister, don't you see the conflict here? On the one hand you are taking
advice from these two men and on the other hand you are giving them $15 million.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I can find it here, if I am not mistaken, the
involvement of the business advisory board in this venture is the same as
Industry Canada's involvement, the same as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency's involvement, the same as the Department of Innovation, Trade and
Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition are going to ask questions, I
respectfully ask you to quieten them down while I am trying to give the answers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a federal-provincial report here -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period cannot continue if there is going to be constant shouting
back and forth.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There was a federal-provincial study done back in 2004-2005 by Industry
Canada. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Department of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency, called, setting the context for a federal-provincial broadband strategy.
Mr. Speaker, if they want to read it, it is on the government Web site. It
has been released. I have referenced it previously. If they want to find it,
they can go on the government Web site and access it themselves. It tells them
this deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Transportation and Works.
A year ago, the previous Minister of Transportation and Works along with the
current minister, who is the Member for Lake Melville, announced in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, with tremendous fanfare I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the
Province would ante up $50 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway and go after
the feds for matching dollars. In fact, the then minister, Mr. Speaker,
predicted an agreement by June, in his own words, and it did not happen or
materialize. In August, the current minister told myself and others in Port Hope
Simpson that he would have the roads deal signed off come December, he said.
Well, Minister, we are four days away and through questions by the federal
Member of Parliament for Labrador in the House of Commons over the weekend, the
feds claim that they have not even received a submission from you.
Why have you not submitted the business case to solidify the federal funding
for the Trans-Labrador Highway?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Minister Responsible
for Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for her question.
Mr. Speaker, this government has been engaged with our federal counterparts.
This is a number one priority, the Trans-Labrador Highway, for the Department of
Transportation and Works and for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I
am happy to report here today, Mr. Speaker, that we are in discussions with the
federal government. We have had a number of meetings, and I can say with all
confidence today, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day here, we will see the
hard surfacing of the Trans-Labrador Highway start as early as next June. I am
very pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: The same speech as last year, Mr. Speaker, different minister.
Well, let me say this, the government has a political commitment from Prime
Minister Stephen Harper for the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Why
are you, Minister, settling for one third of the highway chip seal required -
or, as you used to call it when you were the mayor, cheap seal - when you could
be going for the full amount of money to finish this highway?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works; Minister
Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair, she is not on this file. She has no idea what is going on, neither her
nor the Member of Parliament, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say this,
Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HICKEY: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, we are working diligently with
the federal government on a number of initiatives here in this Province. I will
tell you, we are making great progress and we will inform the member, not before
we make the announcement. She will be invited after we do so, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. minister, if I were on the
file it would be done now, I say to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, they would not be up in Ottawa waiting for me to
put my name to a piece of paper.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,
and I ask her to put her question immediately.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to say they would not be up in Ottawa waiting for a proposal
from me now. I would be up there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, who claims to be the great
negotiator, has a political written commitment from the Prime Minister to offer
up funds to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. In the meantime, why is he
negotiating down on this deal, leaving the whole
section of highway from Goose
Bay to Red Bay with no future commitment of funds to tackle the gravel roads?
Mr. Minister, I ask: Why are you not holding the feds accountable on this
one?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, we saw the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair when she was on her files. We saw what she was like when she was on her
files. Nothing got done, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, nothing got done while she
was on the files. That is why this government, and indeed the Department of
Transportation and Works, are working diligently. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker,
we are very pleased with the progress we are making on the Trans-Labrador
Highway.
Where she is going for this one-third cost, she has absolutely no idea, Mr.
Speaker, what she is talking about, and that is not the first time we have seen
the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair not know what she is talking about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but smile. I cannot help but sit here with the
biggest grin on my face, because I know for a fact the minister has no idea - no
idea - what is going on with the federal government's commitment to this road
money.
Let me ask him this - maybe he will know the answer to this one - in the 2006
Budget Estimates, $7.5 million was budgeted under Transportation and Works for
the Trans-Labrador Highway as a federal government contribution. I ask the
minister today: Where is the $7.5 million? Did you receive it? What did you
spend it on, or did it even exist?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador
Affairs.
MR. HICKEY: To listen to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair even
ask that question is humourous, Mr. Speaker, particularly when she was part of a
crowd that took $90 million out of the Transportation Initiative Fund and put it
in general revenue, while her and the Member for Torngat and the Member for Lake
Melville saw it happen, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: That is what we saw from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Time for one final question.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
Government is shrugging its responsibility to pharmacists, forcing deficit
managing health boards to add to their accumulating debt in order to retain
health care professionals in our hospitals. We now have one board in Labrador
offering up to $20,000 in additional benefits to pharmacists, and the St. John's
Health Care Corporation offering $12,000 in additional salary.
Why is it that the minister is not taking the problem seriously, and offering
up a standard one-off benefit package for all publicly-employed pharmacists in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker -
MS JONES: John, you just lied and you know it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.
AN HON. MEMBER: Do it after Question Period.
MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot. Someone across the House called someone a liar. I
think that is something that cannot be left, Mr. Speaker. It is unparliamentary,
and I ask her to withdraw it.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will deal with the point of order following
Question Period.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.
There is time for a very brief answer, because we must go to the New
Democratic Party.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the four regional health authorities in this Province are doing
very well with their budgets, I may add to the member across the floor, this
year; and, in fact, at least three out of four of the health authorities should
be on budget this year, hopefully all four.
Mr. Speaker, the issue to which she refers, there was a collective agreement
agreed to, ratified and signed this year. In fact, it was signed only in August;
therefore, it is difficult to break open a collective agreement to deal with it
again.
The health authorities have the mandate to deliver services in the Province.
The bonuses that she was referring to in Labrador-Grenfell were given to the
pharmacists in Labrador-Grenfell long before the collective agreement was even
signed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question, too, is for the Minister of Health.
On November 20, the minister said in this House that recruitment to deal with
the serious shortage of hospital pharmacists in the Province is going well
because the Eastern Health Authority hired three pharmacists in the past twelve
months; however, there are currently twelve vacancies in the eastern region and
twenty-one in the Province as pharmacists leave for better wages in other parts
of Atlantic Canada and the rest of Canada.
I am asking the Minister of Health if he will recognize the crisis that we
are in, and find a way for this government to get around what has happened in
August and deal with this crisis and ensure that all pharmacists, number one,
are treated equally?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will correct a statement
that the member opposite just said. I did not say that recruitment was going
well. I was correcting a statement from the member opposite who said that
recruitment was impossible. There were six recruited over the past six or eight
months.
To answer further the member's question: There are nineteen vacancies at
the present time, yes. Six of those are because of maternity leave. So, in fact,
there are actually thirteen vacancies.
As a result of the announcement just recently by Eastern Health, I understand
that they are getting further inquiries to fill some of the vacancies that they
have, and hopefully, as a result of that announcement for additional retention
packages for Eastern Health, they will, in fact, recruit the positions that are
currently vacant there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The staff shortages are causing problems with services. This is a crisis.
Pharmacists have been moved out of clinical pharmacy into dispensing to keep up
with the demand and, even so, there are now delays in chemotherapy drug
dispensing.
What are government's plans for filling this gap - I do not hear plans- and
making sure that our services are not substandard compared to the rest of
Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, along with the retention bonuses that were just recently
announced by Eastern Health, Eastern Health have also announced a number of
initiatives to improve recruitment as well.
We understand that there have been problems with recruitment and retention;
nobody is denying that fact. We understand that there were some problems with
work environment; nobody is denying that. We do understand, as well, that there
were some concerns through Eastern Health in particular with the delivery of
chemo drugs, and Eastern Health - and, in fact, all of the health authorities -
have done something that should have been done a long time ago. There is no
delay in people getting their chemo treatments now, but they are staggered over
the day instead of having all patients come in at one time for an appointment
and having excessive waits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Time for Question Period has expired.
MS JONES: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I would like to say that in referencing the minister's
comments I did use the word lied. I know it is unparliamentary and I would
withdraw the use of that word. However, I do want to make a point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS JONES: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, when -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member is standing on a point of order. The Chair did not direct the
member to withdraw the comment, but she has withdrawn it voluntarily. The Chair
recognizes the member who was going to make, I do believe, a point of order. So,
we will hear the member.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the members opposite were actually listening, they would have known that I
was actually rising to speak to a point of order and would have certainly
refrained their comments.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: In questioning the Minister of
Transportation and Works today and the Minister for Labrador Affairs, he
indicated in his response to one of my questions that the government, us members
opposite when we were in government, had taken $90 million from the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund.
Mr. Speaker, that information was misleading and is not true. The Minister of
Finance, currently can stand in his place today and verify that. He has the
records and the books of the government. He has all the documentation that is
required. The minister in his own department has a report for three consecutive
years running, since they have been in government, called the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund, which indicates, Mr. Speaker, that no money, not
one dollar, was ever taken out of that fund to be used to pay down any debt of
the government.
Mr. Speaker, today the minister stood and misled the House, when he has the
reports on his desk in his office, as a minister. The Minister of Finance has
the reports as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member if she could conclude her point of order very quickly. We
must not use points of order to extend Question Period.
The hon. the member.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will conclude my point of order by saying the documentation does exist to
solidify that the remarks made by the Minister of Transportation and Works today
were unjust, misleading and untrue. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, to do the
honourable thing in this House of Assembly and stand and withdraw those remarks.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The comments today is an exchange between two hon. members in that it does
not constitute, according to our parliamentary procedure, a point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: There is no authority written which determines that as a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, and that is Beauchesne, Marleau and Montpetit.
There is no reference to such a comment.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Two points the Chair would wish to make. First of all, we should be very
careful in extending Question Period by using points of order, and we should
certainly refrain from that. The second thing is that it is impossible for the
Chair, who has no knowledge of these particular matters, to determine the
validity of statements made. In this particular case, there is a disagreement
between two hon. members and that does not constitute a valid point of order.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is very disconcerting the language that has been used today. I
have the greatest of respect for the Chair in this House and I would not have it
any other way, and every member here should. It is very disconcerting when we
hear comments coming from the Chair that I believe were somewhat demeaning. To
suggest that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was trying to extend
Question Period by making a point of order, I think is not proper and I think it
demeans the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that during Question Period today there
was a reference by yourself - you interceded when the Minister of Innovation,
Trade and Rural Development stood up and made a comment to the effect that it is
for us to ask the questions and for government to answer the questions. That is
the first time in my -
MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: Excuse me. The minister of industry and trade did not say
it, the Chair said it. Maybe the minister of industry and trade should listen
and he would know about the point I am trying to make.
The point I am making here, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister - it was up to
the government side to make that comment, and I do not think it is for the Chair
to intercede during Question Period either and defend the government as to who
should answer their questions. That is two incidents this afternoon that we have
seen, and I think in fairness to everybody here - we all work under the same
rules, and when it comes to the stopwatch I have no problem with that. Sometimes
the stopwatch is over or under, but that all balances out. There has to be a
sense of total, utmost, fair play here coming from both sides of this House.
I would also say in the same breath, since it concerns the same issue, the
Government House Leader who is supposed to know the rules here, he is the man,
he has been Opposition House Leader before and now he is Government House
Leader, and he - it is a well known parliamentary point and fact that you do not
jump up during Question Period on points of order, and the Government House
Leader did that. Again, if we are going to have proper decorum in here and
everybody following the rules, maybe some people should go back and learn some
of the rules and stop trying to debate and delay or expire time in Question
Period by getting on with these shenanigans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A couple of points the Chair will make. When members have issues that concern
the Chair, it is a well established practice that these matters should be
discussed in the Speaker's Chambers and that if there is an issue - this
afternoon in Question Period, the Chair will only comment to the extent that
there seemed to be some protest. Maybe the Chair misinterpreted the protest from
the Opposition members. When the question was asked of one minister and then
someone else responded, the Chair may have misinterpreted the process that was
made. If that is the case, then the Chair certainly apologizes for that. The
Chair tries to be as fair as possible, to look on both sides, but when members
are shouting back and forth it is sometimes difficult for the Chair to be able
to understand exactly what is being said. My only comment was: While it is
established practice that the members who are not in the executive have every
right to ask questions, members who sit on the government side and who are not
in the executive also have a right to ask questions. It is not up to those who
ask the questions for them to determine who answers.
We always say, when I direct a question to the Premier, to a minister, but
all questions are, according to Beauchesne and other authorities, directed to
the government. I sense there was a protest when the minister to whom the
question was addressed, another minister replied. If I misunderstood the
protest, then that is what would have happened. The Chair tries to be as fair
and reasonable as one can be under these circumstances.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to raise a point of order from my question to the Minister of
Transportation and Works in the Legislature today. He is a minister of the
Crown. He should be providing information in this Legislature that is accurate
and that is a full reflection of what, in fact, transpired. That did not happen
today.
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the way that we work in this House, in the
spirit of being politicians who are honourable and hon. members in this House, I
ask the minister, once again, to stand and withdraw the comments that he made,
knowing they were false, inaccurate and misleading.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has already ruled on this particular point of order. It is
impossible for the Chair to rule any other way than to say there is no point of
order.
The Chair cannot interpret or cannot say whether one point of view is more
valid than the other, that is not the role of the Chair. The Chair cannot rule
on anything other than to say that there is no point of order.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just out of a point of order, or a point of clarification, we would like to
put the Chair on notice, or the House on notice, I guess, the government
members, that, in view of what happened last Thursday when we had a point of
order raised here by the Government House Leader when we were dealing with
members' statements, we had a situation where, after the Member for Bay of
Islands gave a member's statement concerning the Canadian Diabetes Association
and a non-political function that was held, the minister rose to say he did not
think it was an appropriate use of members' statements.
Anyway, I addressed that point at that time and, that same day, the Minister
of Transportation and Works had given a member's statement as well dealing
with what we thought was absolutely in breach of the intent of members'
statements. It was a policy statement of the government - which we pointed out
the conflict.
Just so we do not have a reoccurrence of that any more, Standing Order 25
deals with the issue of members' statements. So we do not have to go through
those shenanigans any more, we, over on this side of the House, are letting the
government ministers know that, in future, there will be no leave given for
ministers to make members' statements unless the Opposition sees the intended
statement in advance and approves same before we come into this House.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we heard the statement by the Member for Bay of Islands, I did think it
fell outside it. In looking at the statement from my colleague after - I did not
hear what he said, to be honest with you -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I said I read it after - after it was raised.
While I do agree that it did not qualify - the same as the Member for Bay of
Islands did not qualify - I am in full agreement. I raised the issue with the
Speaker and he was informed that normally members' statements go to the
Speaker and they are screened. The Speaker, in the House that day, when it was
raised, did say he partially accepted responsibility, or he accepted
responsibility for that, because they are supposed to be vetted with the Speaker
and provided to the Speaker in advance.
I accept that, whatever side it comes from. I am not in favour of going
outside the rules, because they were put there - and I sat on the committee that
brought reform in, and the bylaws of this House. I was vice-chair of that
committee. I want to see the proper procedures followed. It does not matter what
side of the House it occurs on. We should follow proper procedures, whether it
suits us or whether it does not.
That is the point, and I understood, and I will let my hon. colleagues know
across the House, that the Speaker did indicate that he will certainly ensure
that they are all read in the future and that he will make sure that nothing
would come that would not coincide and not follow with the rules that we brought
here in the House.
We do not have any problem, if a minister is asking leave to give a statement
here and he is going to give a members' statement, that the Opposition - we
will provide it to the Speaker. If it happens to be a minister, I would ask the
Speaker if he could provide it to the Opposition or we could send one along. We
do not have a problem with that. We want to follow the rules of the House, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair thanks hon. members for their guidance to the
Chair and to the House. I thank both the Opposition House Leader and the
Government House Leader for their clarifications, and hopefully we can proceed
with members' statements within the Standing Orders and also within the
protocols that we follow here by tradition.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the report of the
tribunal appointed under
section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991, to report
on salaries and benefits for Provincial Court judges.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An
Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services." ( Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce
a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act No 2." (Bill 51)
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at
5:30 o'clock on Tuesday, and I further give notice, pursuant to Standing Order
11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate another opportunity. I have gotten another petition from the
people of Ramea dealing with the issue of the non-existent restroom, waiting
area, for the ferry service between Burgeo and Ramea.
Someone put it to me last Friday, when I was back in the district, jokingly
they said: Are you looking for a one-holer or a two-holer? Well, Mr. Speaker,
albeit they were trying to be funny, no doubt, and humourous, this is not a
humourous situation. It is a very serious situation indeed.
The Minister of Transportation and Works undertook, last week in the House,
mentioned to me, that he would have something done about this immediately. Well,
I don't know what immediate is, but immediate to me implies within a
reasonable period of time - for example, twenty-four hours, forty-eight hours,
seventy-two hours, maybe - but we are stretching into a week now and nobody, to
my knowledge, has contacted anybody from the Department of Transportation and
Works to look into this situation. Now, I don't know what is meant to be
immediate - and, please, if you are not going to do something immediately, don't
say your going to do it.
The weather is getting colder. The problem has existed. It is unhealthy. It
is unsafe when women, children, seniors, injured people, sick people, have to
get out and crawl amongst the rocks and hide behind somebody's shed down the
landwash in Burgeo and Ramea to use the facility because they are waiting for
the ferry.
As harsh as that might sound, that is the reality they live in. Now, maybe we
can buy fur coats for Ralph Klein and his wife. Maybe we can spend $100,000 in
sightseeing and booze, but I think we need something done on that situation.
This is my fourth time standing up here, and I say to the minister: Never
mind getting up and telling me that you are going to have someone look into it.
If you are going to do it, do it. We do not need to be here - and I insist, and
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I will be up every day on my feet with this issue
until somebody calls me and says: Yes, we got a call from the minister. Because,
if you are not going to do it, don't say you are going to do it. You are
better off telling the people: We are not going to look at it. We are not going
to touch it. Again, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how
badly this is needed. So, please - and I say to the minister: Never mind what
somebody did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. PARSONS: Noah built the ark one time, too, but we are further
advanced than that right now, I say to the minister. We can go back into
history. Never mind shirking your responsibility, I say to the minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Spend you time actually, Mr. Minister, spend your time
sending someone down to look at it instead of telling the people of Burgeo and
Ramea that you are going to have somebody there and do nothing about it. We are
tired of your non-do attitude.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask, with leave, to do first reading on two particular bills, if I
could, so we could get them circulated.
I call first reading, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 50,
An Act Respecting
Pharmaceutical Services.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services. (Bill 50)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the hon. the minister
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 Health and Community Services to introduce a
bill, "An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services," carried. (Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50,
An Act Respecting
Pharmaceutical Services be now read a first time?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the bill be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services. (Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50,
An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services has now
been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 50 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also move first reading of Bill 51,
An Act To Amend The Securities Act No.
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 Securities Act No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion 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'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2," carried. (Bill 51).
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 51,
An Act To Amend The
Securities Act No. 2, be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 51 be read a
first time?
All those in favour, Aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK: A Bill,
An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2. (Bill 51)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51,
An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2 has now
been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 51 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move Motion 3.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11
that this House not adjourn today at 5:30 o'clock, Monday, November 27.
Are members ready for the question?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move Motion 4.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, it is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing
Order 11 the House not adjourn today, Monday, November 27 at 10:00 p.m.
Ready for the motion?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now call, Order 5, second reading of Bill 47,
An Act To Amend The Teachers'
Pensions Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47,
An Act To Amend The
Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers'
Pensions Act." (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, and Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is just one basic, short amendment to this, and that is to allow the
President of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, who is from this Province,
allow him to be able to - who is appointed President - participate in our
provincial pension plan, retroactive to the period of September 1, 2005. That
would be in clause 2 of the bill.
It is very straightforward. Anybody who has represented various associations
are under our public service pensions plans, who participates on a national
level. It is to allow some consistency and fairness there, that they would not
have a period of time in which they would not be able to participate in the
pension plan. I think it is a very straightforward one there and I am not going
to elaborate any further because that is all that is to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have before us today Bill 47,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions
Act. This is a bill that, no doubt, we can support because we have an
opportunity now that we have one of our own, a Newfoundlander and Labradorian,
who is going to be President of the Canadian Teacher's Federation and that
particular person wants to participate in the pension plan during his term of
office. Well, it would stand to reason that this would be a very important
consideration for anyone accepting a position on a national board like this
particular one. I cannot see where that should be a problem but this is
certainly a bill that is talking about money, and of course during a debate on a
money bill we have an opportunity as an Opposition to ask any questions
concerning money issues.
It was interesting today, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Minister of
Health give his response when questioned by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair regarding the pharmacists' situation, and he seemed to put all the
blame or close the issue as of the negotiation that had taken place in August
which resulted in a contract. Now, in my chat with the pharmacists they were,
more or less, held with a gun to their head during those negotiations in August.
They could not negotiate or talk to the government negotiator on the issue of
raises at all. That was an issue that the government negotiator would not
entertain whatsoever. That particular negotiator said that this issue would be
settled after the contract was signed, and we are seeing today that it is not
settled.
We have a lot of issues out there in the Province, especially now the
disparity when you see the Eastern Health Care Board come up with a creative way
to look after the pharmacists who are working for the Eastern Health Care Board;
creative in a sense that the board has to come up with $1 million, and they said
they can do that. They have to come up with $1 million in order to provide
raises for their pharmacists. When you look at the fact now, that is another
step in alienating rural Newfoundland and Labrador because you can come up with
a creative solution for the Eastern Health Care Board but you cannot come up
with a solution for everywhere else in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, it is no good for the Minister of Health to stand up in his
place and stick with the line that we signed a contract in August and a contract
is a contract, because there will always be situations in this Province,
particularly as it pertains to health care, that sometimes you might have to do
a one-off deal. It is no good for you to tell a cancer patient in Grand
Falls-Windsor or Gander that you do not have a pharmacist to fill the
chemotherapy drug for that day for the treatment that they are going to have.
How can you tell a patient who is waiting anywhere outside of the Eastern Health
Care Board that they will not have a pharmacist mixing their medication? We
already are into problems. The Minister of Health cannot put his head in the
sand and forget about the pharmacists.
When you consider the fact that, out of the thirty-two graduates last year
from the MUN School of Pharmacy in 2006 - actually, it was this year -only nine
of them stayed in our Province, we are educating at a great cost and running a
School of Pharmacy for people who are going to get their education and leave our
Province. Doesn't the government have sense enough to recognize that we are
putting a lot of money into that School of Pharmacy and we are not getting the
outcome that we should? When less than one-third of the people who graduated for
the School of Pharmacy this year are staying in our Province to work, you know
there is an issue here. There is an issue here that must be addressed.
There is a bigger issue, too, because I know cancer patients who, while they
are in hospital, their medication is taken care of. As soon as they are out of
hospital and they go home and they have to have medication, whether it be cancer
or heart problems or whatever, those drugs are not taken care of once they leave
the hospital and they are discharged.
You know, there are people in this Province today who, once they are
discharged from hospital, they cannot afford to have the proper medication to
help them overcome their illnesses and, as a result, they are deciding between
heat and medication or food and medication.
So, Mr. Speaker, although we are probably living in the best times
economically right now since Confederation, we have not addressed the social
ills in this Province. The glaring one right before us today is the pharmacists,
and we have to find a way - this government has to find a way - to make sure
that this situation does not stay like it is today.
In the information that has been supplied by the pharmacists in this
Province, we are learning now that there will be less than twenty graduates from
the School of Pharmacy who will actually stay in this Province to work over the
next two years.
Now, the Minister of Health stands on his feet and says: You know, there is
not that big a problem with recruitment and retention. We have managed to hire
six over the past eight months.
Well, now, that is not a very good record, only managed to hire six over the
past eight months, when there is at lease a shortage of pharmacists in this
Province of over thirty pharmacists.
So, we have an issue here that government does not see the urgency. They have
a bit of time now because the Eastern Health Care Board has managed to come up
with $1 million to pay their pharmacists extra money to keep them.
Now, if the Eastern Health Care Board came up with $1 million, they just did
not pick it off the budget sheet. That means that there is going to be probably
$1 million in cuts to the Eastern Health Care Board that some - you just do not
find a surplus in a health care board. In fact, most of them are running
deficits even though they are not supposed to do it. You do not find $1 million
under a box of tissues in someone's hospital room. A million dollars means
that there are going to be cuts throughout this board and they are not yet
realized.
Currently, there are twelve vacancies at the Eastern Health. There are six at
Central.
MR. T. OSBORNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to clarify. The member opposite just said that there are thirty
vacancies across the Province. There are, in fact, nineteen vacancies at
present, Mr. Speaker.
She was talking about the health boards running deficits. In fact, at least
three of the four health boards, we understand, this year, Mr. Speaker, should
be coming in on budgetary targets; hopefully all four of them, Mr. Speaker.
Another point that I wish to clarify is, she said that I said there wasn't
a problem with recruitment and retention. I did not, and I would invite her to
go back and read Hansard. What I did say, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the health
critic, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, having said just a couple
of weeks ago that recruitment is impossible and that there have not been any
pharmacists recruited, I said that statement was incorrect and that, in fact,
there were six pharmacists recruited over the past several months.
There is still a problem with recruitment and retention, and I have never
said that there was not. In fact, I have said there is.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order. The minister has used a point of order to engage
in debate.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting that the minister is listening attentively when the
Opposition is pointing out disparities in the system. I wonder if he would turn
that energy into providing some kind of a creative solution so pharmacists will
not be out there on edge and applying for jobs all over Canada when they know
that the money should be given to them to satisfy their situation right now so
that the whole Province will not be in a crisis.
It is pretty clear from the information that I have received, and the whole
Province has received, and I know from past experience of being in government,
that a lot of money is injected into our health care system and most of the
boards in the Province have great difficulty in maintaining a balanced budget.
That has been the case over, I would say, many, many years, as many as we can
remember, there is always a situation that comes up that boards are not prepared
for, and this is the one on pharmacists, although they knew in August that they
had a situation.
I recall, when we were the government, we had a situation when we were losing
oncologists, and oncologists are so important in cancer treatment. We had to
find a creative way to be able to pay our oncologists more and get them to stay
here in the Province. They are very rare, that particular profession, across
Canada, and sometimes you have to do things out of the ordinary in order to meet
health and safety needs.
We also had a situation, when we were government, of the lab and X-ray
strike. What do you do? Do you leave people on the street? Sometimes you are
forced to go to whatever means possible to ensure the life and safety of our
people in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has known about this situation for
months, and when you consider there are up to 1,000 medications a day prepared
at the Health Sciences Complex in St. John's, and 100 chemotherapy orders
every day - Mr. Speaker, there are at least 100 chemotherapy orders in at the
Health Sciences Complex every day. We have the facilities in Grand Falls-Windsor
now for treating cancer patients - improved ones, I am happy to say, and our
patients are going to be a whole lot more content sitting down in good
surroundings - but, if we were to lose our pharmacists in Grand Falls-Windsor,
we would be into an awful situation. There is chemotherapy treatment being done
every day, and that is the problem. If you do not have an adequate number of
pharmacists to look after preparing medications for the patients in the
hospitals, you are going to have a backlog of people, and this treatment has to
be done on a daily basis. It is no good to wait a week or so.
I am glad to heard that the Eastern Health Care Board have been creative in
finding a solution for their pharmacists. I doubt very much if Central and
Western Health would be able to come up with that kind of money. They are
running on a very tight budget and they do not have the means, probably, that
Eastern Health does.
MR. REID: They are losing their pharmacists and (inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Absolutely.
I hear the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague, saying that it is quite
possible that our pharmacists in Central Newfoundland and also Western
Newfoundland might end up applying for jobs out here, and in Labrador, too. So,
every pharmacist outside of the Eastern Health care region are looking at their
own particular situation, and that is not going to last. If you have a solution
for one group, you are going to have a lot of discontent with the other group.
Some sites have had a critical shortage and pharmacists have often worked as
many as thirteen days in a row. The pharmacists themselves have been looking at
recruitment and retention, despite what the Minister of Health says. The average
time to fill a vacancy for pharmacists in our Province is some seventy months.
That is a long time. That is a long time to look for a pharmacist and actually
put one in a job. I see private business out there looking for pharmacists all
the time and they have great difficulty trying to lure a pharmacist to private
enterprise.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are opportunities, I know, under other bills to discuss those issues.
They are completely, entirely unrelated in second reading. You talk on the
principles of the bill so that we have the President of the Canadian Teachers'
Federation of this Province so there can be a continuation of the pension during
those years. That is all that is in this bill. There is opportunity to debate
those issues the member feels strongly on, but it is totally out of order under
second reading of a bill dealing with a completely different matter.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is aware of the wide-ranging nature. The Chair is
well aware that we are doing second reading on a very precise bill. While the
member has been speaking we have been having some research done. The tradition
of our House is that on supply bills and on taxation bills, the debate can be
very wide-ranging. I should say to the member that research is being done now to
see if the practice of our House has been relative to whether or not a matter
that is now in discussion, which is very narrow and focused, can be used to
extend a debate that is very wide-ranging. The practice that I am familiar with
in this House is that when it comes to supply bills, when it comes to taxation
bills, in these matters you can have a wide-ranging debate. I would ask the
member if she could constrain her comments now perhaps to the principles of the
bill that we are discussing.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is no trouble to find the relevancy in this bill, when I look at Bill 47.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have uncovered a nerve here because during the
debate on the Teachers' Pension Act I already had two interruptions, one from
the Minister of Health who must have thought it was relevant, and now from the
Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board. We have definitely hit a
nerve, but I will contain my remarks particularly to this bill as it is set out.
We have another issue when it comes to the teachers' pension fund. I am
glad that the teachers' pension fund is in a much better financial position
than it was two years ago, and I am sure that the teachers in this Province are
glad that it is in a better financial position. Most of the $2 billion of the
Atlantic Accord money went into the teachers' pension plan and, as a result,
it is a much healthier plan today. Now, I do not know, there was never any
debate on whether or not the Atlantic Accord money could be used for other
issues facing our Province, and I wish that we would have had that opportunity
in the House of Assembly. I wish we would have had that opportunity in the House
of Assembly so that everybody who sits here in this House and has constituents
all over our Province might have been able to give their view on how the $2
billion could have been spent. I understand Florence Delaney gave her view on
how it could have been spent and she ended up being fired. However, the Teachers'
Pensions Act, this is going to be a new extension of the Teachers' Pensions
Act so that teachers who sit on national boards, particularly the Canadian
Teachers Federation, are now going to be able to have their pension extended
during their term of office, which is a good thing.
We have a multi-province arrangement across our country that we have several
pensions throughout the country, both provincially and federally, where there is
a multi-lateral arrangement that these pensions can be transferred from one
jurisdiction to the other. It makes a great deal of sense because when you think
about putting yourself up for a federal appointment - I had a situation recently
in my constituency where there was a person interested in serving on a national
board but the particular institution where this person was employed would not
let this person off one day a month to go to a meeting on a federal board. Now,
most employers around the Province would encourage an employee to expand their
knowledge and do community work outside of their community and outside of their
province, because we have lots of talent in this Province and there is no reason
why we cannot see our people sit on national boards.
This particular constituent of mine is now facing an appeal process because
he is not permitted, through his institution, to sit on a national board, even
though he can make an arrangement to replace him while he is going to be gone
for one day a month on a national board. There must be criteria developed within
government and within our public institutions which allows for that kind of
involvement by professionals here in our Province, because you really stymie
enthusiasm when a person who has been in a job for a long time, who is working
with government and has the qualifications and the expertise to sit on a
national board, but yet would be compromised. They would either have to give up
their job or not be able to take
part in a pension plan.
I am glad that government has seen an inadequacy here in the teachers'
pension fund and are going to correct that, but the situation that I now have in
my District of Grand Falls-Buchans about one other individual - I have written a
letter of support for that person over the past week. I do hope, through debate
like this, that maybe that particular institution may be listening today and
they can see the importance of our people being able to sit on national boards,
and maybe they will have a reconsideration on this particular individual's
request.
When you are talking about the Teachers' Pensions Act, the commitment that
was made during the previous government to put in a certain dollar amount every
year to try to bring the teachers' pension fund into a situation where it was
100 per cent funded - it looked so bleak at the time because teachers, first
when they started out, were paying very little into their pension fund, and
naturally over the years a good number of them retired. As a result, the fund
was always underfunded. There were never enough contributions going into that
particular fund to fund the number of teachers that are retiring. There was
always a threat around that pension fund saying that the fund would be
completely exhausted, I think it was somewhere around 2015 or 2020. I do not
recall the exact number of years but it was pretty close, probably ten or
fifteen years time.
When you look at the fact that we do not have the same number of teachers
working in our system now in the Province that we did, say, ten years ago - we
do not have the same number of students. In fact, in about seven years time we
will be down to about 60,000 children in our schools. As a result of that,
government will probably be making some tough decisions over the next few years.
They are already making them now. Will rural Newfoundland be left like we know
it today? I doubt very much.
With that comes the fact that there will be less teachers. There will be less
teachers paying into the pension fund. Without this big injection of money that
was made last year, we would have had a great number of teachers out with not
the pension fund that they thought they were going to have.
There are some tough decisions to be made in the future around rural
Newfoundland and Labrador and also the number of teachers that we will want in
our schools and need in our schools. The hard part about all of that is that
people choose to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the school is
always the nucleus of what goes on in the community. To take a school out, you
are taking the lifeline out of the community. Everything happens in the school.
I faced that myself when I was first elected ten years ago. There was a
situation where the school was going to be closed in Badger. I know that
situation was one of the hardest things that I had to deal with first when I got
elected. In fact, the people of Badger were so frustrated that they were not
even going to allow the school bus to leave their community with the children on
it to go to Grand Falls-Windsor. I had threats that I, myself, was going to be
actually chained to the school bus. People were so engaged about their school,
their school bus and their children, the nucleus of the community.
It was several years ago that we, as a government, insisted, and put into
writing and put into law, that there would be necessarily existent schools in
our Province so that parents and children would never have to worry again.
Younger children and elementary children would not have to leave their homes,
get on a school bus and drive for hours. They would have primary and elementary
schools in their communities. That is a big relief when people hear that.
I hope that this government will never overturn that legislation. I know that
is probably on the drawing board right now where this particular government
might overturn that necessarily existent schools legislation. I tell you, that
would be a bad thing to do because it would really be tearing the heart and soul
out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
When you see, in your mailbox, a booklet from Alberta with over thirty
companies enticing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to work out west, that is
the hard part. That is the hard part, that companies out west now have seen a
mecca here in our Province of well-trained professionals and well-trained
tradespeople who cannot find jobs in their own Province and they are going to be
heading out west, and companies out west have put it together into a coloured
booklet trying to capitalize on our situation in our Province and lure people
out west.
This is a problem we are going to have with the teachers in the future. In
fact, we already saw it with our pharmacists. They are being lured out, too,
with the thoughts of making more money. When you look at the Teachers'
Pensions Act, it is deeper than just this one amendment that is added to it
today. This takes care of this particular situation, but there are going to be
lots of situations come up in the future that we have to look at as our teachers
- you know, all our public servants, now, the average age of our public servants
is close to fifty years old.
When I was in the position on the other side of the House, the average age of
our public servants was forty-seven, and that was only three years ago. The
average age of our public servants, because we have not done many hirings of
young people in the public service, is almost fifty years old. So, we will be
facing all of these problems associated with succession in a few years' time
and we will have well-trained people who are leaving this system and we will not
have young people to fill the gaps. What will that do for government? Will
government be operating with a smaller government? What will happen to the face
of rural Newfoundland as we know it today?
These are the many questions that will be facing government as they try to
govern properly, and it is our job as an Opposition to point out all these
difficulties ahead and offer solutions. It is not only our job to criticize; it
is also our job to offer solutions.
I do not think that you can skimp on education. You cannot bring education to
such a level that our young people in small communities feel that they are not
getting an adequate education, and our young people cannot be glued to a TV
screen or monitor trying to get an education on some of the subjects or
specialities that they cannot get in their schools.
I know in Buchans there are several subjects now, advanced math and others,
that need to be taught through a computer screen, and that is very difficult, to
try to get your credits dealing through a computer monitor. It is not like
having a teacher in your classroom and being able to ask that teacher questions.
These are things that we have to consider for the future.
The Member for Mount Pearl, who was a teacher - and I suppose he is still a
teacher by profession - weren't you a school principal as well?
MR. DENINE: No.
MS THISTLE: No? Okay, he wasn't a school principal, but he was a
teacher. I know he has experience in urban settings. You have experience in
urban settings as a teacher. He has experience in urban settings like Mount
Pearl. I do not know if he ever taught in St. John's or not, but I can tell
you what: It is clear to me, and it is clear to everybody watching, that you
have not taught in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. DENINE: How do you know?
MS THISTLE: Because you have not been up on your feet to correct me, for
one thing, because all you talk about is what happens in here.
I can tell you, I am the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans -
MR. JOYCE: He is always talking about big cities.
MS THISTLE: You are always talking about big city issues, but there are
lots of issues out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that you should get
apprised of. You might get in Cabinet that way, you know, if you got familiar
with rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the meantime, there are issues out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that
we cannot sweep under the rug. I mean, we had the Opposition House Leader today
talk about the very basics, a bathroom for somebody getting the ferry from Ramea
to Burgeo. My gosh, and here we are with $2 billion, and 80 per cent of it went
into the teachers' pension fund, and we cannot spend $1,000 to put a small
room there, or a waiting area - probably $5,000 to put a waiting area and a
washroom.
During the Premiers' Conference here there were mugs and jugs and sweaters
and booze and entertainment and you name it, nothing was spared. If you had to
add up the price of the ticket for that one-night stand when everything was
free, it would have cost the taxpayers about $700 a head, but we cannot find
small money to provide the basic necessary comfort for someone to use the
washroom on the ferry going between Burgeo and Ramea.
Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Mount Pearl talks about rural Newfoundland
and Labrador and the teachers' pension fund - now, I remember when the
teachers paid very little into the teachers' pension fund, but that was in the
past, and the teachers were one of the groups in our Province who had the
Cadillac plan. They did not have to lose any clawback when they became
sixty-five. Now, there are a lot of teachers here sitting in this House today
who were part of that Cadillac plan. They are not going to have any money clawed
back when they turn sixty-five. The ones today who are in the teaching
profession, they are not getting that luxury. They came in at a different era
and they are not going to be party to having no clawbacks. They have to pay a
higher contribution and when they turn sixty-five there is going to be a
clawback when they get their Canada Pension. Like everything else, you cannot
condemn teachers for what they have today with the no clawbacks, the Cadillac
plan, because that was part of the negotiation at that particular time.
When teachers negotiated for their contract many years ago that was one of
the things they got as being part of their plan. They probably got that in lieu
of a raise because it was so far extended out into the future. Government hit on
hard times at that particular time when the teachers' pension fund and other
pension funds were used to put asphalt on roads and beds in hospitals. One way
to satisfy contract negotiators at that time was say: Okay, teachers, we have a
plan for you. What we will do is that when you turn sixty-five you will not have
to get any of your pension clawed back from Canada Pension. We will let you have
the works. We will let you have your teachers pension, your old age pension and
your Canada Pension, the works. We are not going to touch you, except for old
age pension. That is what we did for teachers years ago but that plan does not
exist today. New teachers coming on stream have to pay higher contributions and
they do not have that same luxury.
You know, you cannot criticize for what happened ten, twenty or thirty years
ago. People who were sitting in government or sitting at a negotiating table at
that time, they made the best decisions they could based on the information that
they had and the money that they had and what they could work with. I mean,
there are lots of decisions which have been made in the past three years that
are not decisions that everybody agrees with. I am sure history - when you look
back over the past three years and the next year coming up, there will be lots
of people who will say: Well, you know, this government, the Williams'
government, did not make a good decision here. There will be people who will
dispute how the $2 billion could have been invested. There will always be that
kind of discussion and that is what makes it good, because as a democracy of
this Province we are able to stand on our feet and we are able to question. We
are able to observe, we are able to question.
Generally, what happens is that when somebody makes an observation, or poses
a different point of view, governments generally sit back and examine their own
decisions. We have seen lots of cases in the past several months where
governments have rethought their decisions on different issues and have made
changes. Although governments do not admit it, they do rely on public opinion
polls. Public opinion polls can be found on open line talk shows, they can be
found in the media and, of course, this government has been doing enormous
polling. Every situation or every issue that comes up, this particular
government does enormous polling to see whether or not it is going to be
accepted by the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my talk on the teachers' pension fund
right now because there are several bills coming up over the course of the next
day or so, and I am going to have a lot of opportunity to talk about situations
where people's lives are comprised in this Province. I will leave my further
discussion for those bills.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am certainly not going to take twenty minutes - at least I have no
intention to - to speak to Bill 47,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions
Act.
I think what it states, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill would amend
section 3
of the Teachers' Pensions Act to allow a member of a teachers' pension plan,
who is appointed to the position of President of the Canadian Teachers'
Federation, to continue to participate in the pension plan during his or her
term of office as President.
What has happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that - I guess it was three years ago
an individual by the name of Mr. Wins Carter was elected as the President of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. He served his two-year term,
but as a result of what a great job he did, his colleagues across the country
actually elected him as the President of the Canadian Teachers' Association,
and as a result he has been carrying out those duties for I think - a year, is
it, Minister, or two?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. REID: Well, I think his term will clue up later on in the next year,
Mr. Speaker, next August or next September. All the minister is asking to do
here is that while he is fulfilling those duties, that it would be still going
towards his pension. We have done that because people have been in the Province
- if you become the President of the Teachers' Association in the Province you
would still count it as pensionable service. We do the same thing for nurses who
also become presidents. We also do the same thing for NAPE employees. All we are
doing here is because he is now the Canadian President of the Teachers'
Association, is that while he is off for that year or two years on that job,
that he can still accrue pension benefits.
I have to say, I know Mr. Carter personally, and for most of his life, if not
all of it, he has taught in the Bonavista North area and he has done a
tremendous job in the Carmanville area. He is the principal of the school down
there, or was the principal until he assumed these duties. He will probably go
back there after he is finished this term, but because of the job that he did as
a teacher and a principal, I guess the people of the Province or the teachers of
the Province recognized that and elected him as the President of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. He made such an impression on
those from away in the other provinces, that they indeed decided that they were
going to elect him as the Canadian President of the Teachers' Association.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, you were an educator yourself, but I think that
this is probably the first time -
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. REID: No, it is not; not the first time that a Newfoundlander or
Labradorian became the President of the Canadian Teachers' Association? I am
not aware of others, but apparently there are some. Maybe you can mention those
in closing, Mr. Speaker, but I am just -
AN HON. MEMBER: Len Williams.
MR. REID: Mr. Len Williams, you are right. Another great educator, Mr.
Len Williams. I forgot him. Actually, I did know that, Mr. Speaker.
All I would like to say is that we have no problem with allowing Mr. Carter,
in light of the fact that he was a great educator in this Province and continues
to be, to accrue some pension benefits while he is acting as the President of
the Canadian Teachers' Association.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he
will close debate at second reading.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move second reading of Bill 47,
An Act To Amend The Teachers'
Pensions Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill
47,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47 has now been read a second time. When shall this
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act,"
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now call Bill 40,
An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public
Inquires. That is Bill 40. It is in second reading already, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 40 has had some debate on it, and I believe the
Opposition House Leader had several minutes left of his first presentation.
Further speakers.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding that I can speak for an hour on this one, but I do not
think I will today. It is
An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of
Public Inquiries.
The reason I am rising to speak to this one today is because our side of the
House has been asking for a public inquiry pertaining to this fibre optic cable
thing that has been happening and ongoing in our Province now for the past, I
think, four weeks. We have been asking a lot of questions and there is almost
like a public inquiry. There is certainly a public debate going on, out in the
general public about this, but even though there is lots of debate going on, we
are getting few answers from government. That is the reason that we asked for a
public inquiry, because it is only a public inquiry who would have the rights
and the privileges of being able to call witnesses, to subpoena witnesses, and
to view Cabinet documents and all correspondence written or orally to find out
exactly what happened in this. It is only a public inquiry that gives us the
tools to be able to complete that job, and that is the reason I asked for it.
Last week, the government agreed to allow the Auditor General to come in and
investigate this. We have not heard if the Auditor General is, in fact, going to
do that. I know I spoke to him on Thursday morning and at that time he hadn't
been asked, but he did tell me that he is quite busy at the time, for obvious
reasons. He is doing an investigation into the House of Assembly and the MHAs,
and that is going to take him quite some time. He said that if, indeed, he were
asked by the government to conduct this investigation, the first thing he would
need to do is to have a substantially larger budget because he would have to be
able to go out and hire the experts who would be required in order to do a true
investigation to see if this deal, as the Premier says, is squeaky clean and
above board.
If it is so squeaky clean, and I keep going back to that point - in fact, I
just did an interview with the media here in the Province and I just made the
point that if it is so squeaky clean and it is so above board, then why not let
somebody have a look at it? Why not let the Public Accounts Committee hold an
investigation into it? The answer keeps coming back: No, it is not necessary.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, maybe it is my upbringing, but when someone tells
me something, even as a kid, that you are not allowed to do something, you want
to find out why. You want to find out why. I have always had an inquisitive
mind, and usually when somebody tells you, no, you cannot do this, you have to
find out why; but, more importantly - maybe I am that type of person - when I am
told, no, you cannot have a look at that, you have a sense that something is
being hidden.
Now, I am not saying it is in this case, but it certainly gives an
impression, when someone says you cannot look at something, that there is
something actually being hidden. What I am talking about is this cable proposal.
A few weeks ago, we had an information outage - not a power outage - in the
St. John's area, and that affected a lot of the other parts of the Province,
where our telephone and telecommunications systems went down. It was on a Friday
night, and I remember it well because we were left not only without hard line
telephones and computer access but we were also left without cellphones. As
well, Mr. Speaker, if you use a debit card and a credit card, like I do all the
time, you could not even use one of those. That is how reliant we are today on
computer technology.
MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).
MR. REID: Yes, I say reliant, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, not
Aliant.
I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of how reliant we are on computer
technologies and information technologies today. Yesterday afternoon, I had the
occasion of going into a store and picked up a pair of pants, bought a pair of
pants. I got up to the wicket and that little scanner that they have there, they
scanned it over the price and it didn't work. I asked the young man, who was
the cashier there: Why don't you just tap in the amount? The amount is right
there on the pants. In fact, they're reduced; that is the reason I bought
them. They were on sale. He said: No, I can't tap in the price. Then he said:
I am going to have to call my supervisor.
Of course, as I am doing this, slowing down the line, the line is getting
longer and I am getting a little embarrassed. So, he called his supervisor over
the PA system and I stepped back and said: Here you go, folks, you can go ahead
because this may take awhile.
So, we got halfway through, then, when the supervisor came up and she looked
around and said: Well, I'll go down and get another pair similar to those and
bring them up. She went down and brought two more pairs, so there were three
pairs of pants. Now I was pushing into the line again because they told me to
come up - and they scanned in those and they couldn't work. They couldn't
get the scanner in the computer to work to show the price on the machine so I
could give them my money. She said: Well, I'll have to go and get my
supervisor. I said: Hold on, here, now; maybe I will wait and come back at a
different time because there are a lot of people wanting to get served. They
said: No, no, this will only take a few minutes.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the story, the third supervisor came down
and said: Listen, put in this number and the price. Sure enough, after a lengthy
wait, I finally purchased the pants. After all of that, I got them home and they
were too big for me. I said to my wife: I'm not bringing them back. Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, that is how reliant we are on computer technology.
A few weeks ago, that happened in St. John's and surrounding areas, and
other parts of the Province. As a result of that, we were led to believe, by a
number of very prominent individuals in the St. John's area, that this could
be solved if we had another fibre optic line leading right across this Province,
across the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on to the mainland, because then we would
not be reliant upon the one company that provides this service - and that is
Aliant - to the Province.
We were led to believe that and, in fact, the Mayor of St. John's came out
and said, over that weekend or early on Monday morning, that this is not
acceptable; we need competition. We need another fibre optic line across the
Province hooking us on to the mainland so that we are not left in the dire
straits that we were on Friday night when we had the 911 service down and we
could have had all kinds of catastrophic events happen in the Province and we
would not be able to react to it.
In fact, as a result of that, Randy Simms on Open Line called me on Monday.
If you remember, that Monday was a holiday. We were not working that day, and I
got called at home. He called me and asked me what I thought of that. I said:
Well, it is obvious, we need another fibre optic cable - based on what the mayor
had said. I think, as well, the President of the Board of Trade, a Mr. Dillon,
came out and said similar things. He works, I found out later, with Rogers, of
course, but led us to believe that if we had a second what they call redundant
line, that this would not have happened again.
Anyway, I went out and said, yes, we need another company to come in and
establish another cable, or build another cable line across the Gulf on to the
mainland, but I found out shortly after that - thanks to a couple of editorials
in the paper and a few letters to the editor - indeed there was a second line.
Aliant has two fibre optic cables that run sort of parallel in the Province from
St. John's right across the Island and on to the mainland. The word we were
hearing from Aliant, and those who had previously worked with Aliant, is that
even if we had two more lines provided by another company, or six more lines,
there is still a possibility that what happened on Allandale Road would happen
again and we would still be left without that information technology.
That began to make me wonder why we were doing it. Why are we out investing
$15 million into what is called a redundant line when we already have one? That
led to more questions being asked.
Finally, I might add, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development
comes out and says that while he was working on this for the last eighteen
months, or government, all of a sudden he is down in Florida to a conference on
another topic all together, other than telecommunications, and he gets a call to
come home and announce, on a Thursday, that the provincial taxpayers are going
to put $15 million into a consortium made up of Persona, Rogers and MTS
Allstream, and that this was required.
Again, we wonder what is going on here; and, knowing the connection between
the Premier and some of the proponents in these two companies, we started to ask
more questions. For example, Mr. Dean McDonald, the fellow that the Premier
touts as being one of the most intelligent people in the Province, every time we
turn on an Open Line show or listen to the TV or radio we have the Premier
talking about how bright this young fellow is - he knows everything, and how
much he trusts him, and how he mentored him. He hired him, himself, when he
owned Cable Atlantic, and he mentored him. As a result, he knows everything
there is to know.
I do not know the man, so I cannot comment on his intelligence or his
credentials. Anyway, I am sort of diverging here, but when we looked at the
three companies involved we found out that two of them had connections with the
Premier through other companies that they were involved with prior to the
Premier becoming Premier. We found that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Hatcher and Mr.
Marshall, all three worked for Cable Atlantic when the Premier owned the
company, and now these three individuals are being employed by two of the
proponents, Rogers and Persona, to do this deal across the Province. Again, I am
not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it makes you ask more
questions when you find out things like that.
That is what we have been doing for the past three or three-and-a-half weeks;
we have been asking questions. Every time, for some reason, especially with
regard to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development who sits
opposite, every time that I ask him a question, he jumps up on his feet and says
how stunned I am, and I cannot read and I cannot write and I cannot listen, and
I get everythin