Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 30 April 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 15)
2002-04-30
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 30, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 15
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our Routine Proceedings, I would like to welcome to the
gallery today fourteen Level III students from Sacred Heart School in Conche,
the District of The Straits & White Bay North. They are accompanied by
teachers: Ms Ida Gardiner and Ms Tina Fudge, along with chaperones: Ms Alice
Flynn, Mr. Austin Gardiner and Mr. Melvin MacDonald.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer congratulations to a long
time friend, a former member of this House of Assembly, and for many decades a
leader in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry, Mr. Alec D. Moores, on
his induction later today into the Junior Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador
Business Hall of Fame.
Mr. Moores was born at Blackhead, Conception Bay, in 1919 and began his
working career at age sixteen with the Bank of Nova Scotia in Fogo.
Mr. Moores is a pioneer of the modern fishery and began his career in the
fishery in 1947 with North Eastern Fish Industries Ltd. as Vice-President and
General Manager. For many years North Eastern Fish Industries Ltd. was a major
fresh fish producer in the Province. At its peak in the 1960s the company
operated processing plants at Harbour Grace, Port de Grave, Old Perlican and
Fermeuse, employing approximately 3,000 people and purchasing fish from
approximately 10,000 fishermen.
In the late 1960s, Mr. Moores formed his own companies, Harbour International
and Alec D. Moores Limited and continued to cultivate international partnerships
developing relationships with the Norwegian and the Faroese fishing fleets.
Mr. Moores has also served his town and his Province in many roles. He has
been the Mayor of the Town of Harbour Grace, a Member of the House of Assembly
for the District of Harbour Grace, twice President of the Fisheries Association
of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Director of the Fisheries Council of Canada.
He is a recipient of the 1967 Centennial Medal awarded by the Government of
Canada to recognize outstanding contributions to the country.
Mr. Moores is married to Maysie Babb, and they have three sons, Douglas,
David and Darroch.
I ask all members to join with me today in congratulating Mr. Alec D. Moores
on his induction into the Junior Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Business
Hall of Fame.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform Members of the House of
Assembly that the 3A Provincial High School Badminton Tournament is scheduled to
take place in the community of Makkovik on May 10 of this year.
Mr. Speaker, this is significant because it will be the first provincial
tournament held in the riding of Torngat Mountains where participating teams
from the Island portion of the Province will participate. This is a much
anticipated event for the residents of Makkovik, as well as those of other
northern communities as they recognize the significance of this event.
The organizers see this event as a golden opportunity to showcase the North
Coast of Labrador. It is an opportunity to highlight the positive aspects of
Northern Labrador - such as the wonderful people, their culture, and the scenic
landscape - to a group of visitors who might not otherwise have the opportunity
to see and experience Northern Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating the organizers, the volunteers and all the participants who will
take
part in this sporting event.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to extend 90th birthday greetings to
Harriet Florence Hann. Mrs. Hann was born in High Beach, Lamaline on this date
in 1912 to John Hillier and Annabella Purchase. Now, a resident of Masonic Park
in Mount Pearl, she enjoys excellent health and was the obvious guest of honour
at a special birthday party held at the Recreation Centre at Masonic Park on
Saturday afternoon, April 27.
As a young teenager, Harriet worked in St. Pierre during the summer months
and, as a seventeen year old, was a witness to the 1929 tidal wave disaster that
brought so much devastation and loss of life to the Burin Peninsula.
In 1936, Harriet Hillier married Clement Hann of Lamaline. Mr. Hann was
primarily engaged in the fishery. Together, they raised four children, one
daughter and three sons. While taking care of her family, Harriet also looked
after the family's small farm and vegetable garden.
In 1950, the Hanns opened a small variety and grocery store which helped
supply essential products to the local community.
Mr. and Mrs. Hann moved to Masonic Park in Mount Pearl in 1988. A widow since
1991, Mrs. Hann continues to be an active participate in many of the activities
available to the cottage residents at the Senior's Complex. As a matter of
fact, she still does her own shopping and cooking, et cetera. On Sunday, she is
a regular worshiper at the Church of the Ascension in Mount Pearl.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with the family and
friends of Harriet Hann today in extending to her very best wishes on her 90 th
birthday. All of us, Mr. Speaker, I know, wish her many more years of happiness
and good health.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Ms Betty Jerrett's contribution to Bay Roberts and area has
made her town a better place to live. Because of her dedication, she has been
selected as Bay Roberts Citizen of the Year for 2001, succeeding her husband who
was last year's Citizen of the Year.
Her service to the community has varied with her interests, including: youth,
health care, church work, and bettering the area itself.
Ms Jerrett's involvement includes working with the Conception Bay North
Girl Guides, Trinity-Conception Health Foundation, Canadian Red Cross, Canadian
National Institute for the Blind, Newfoundland Lung Association and the Canadian
Cancer Society.
Betty is probably best known as the founding president of the Bay Roberts
Heritage Society. A volunteer for thirty years, she has taken administrative,
executive and leadership roles at the local, regional and provincial levels.
I ask all hon. members to join me in saying to Ms Betty Jerrett: A job well
done, and congratulations on being named Bay Roberts Citizen of the Year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday, April 26, I attended a party hosted by the Iron Ore Company of
Canada in Labrador City to thank and pay tribute to thirty-four of their
employees who will be officially retiring tomorrow, May 1.
These employees, Mr. Speaker, are among hundreds who have retired from the
mining companies in recent years, who have made their home in the North, raised
their families, made our community a great place to live, and contributed
significantly to the mining industry and the provincial economy.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what other employers do for their retiring
employees, but I can say without question that the dinner, retirement gifts and
acknowledgments bestowed on retiring employees and their spouses by both the
Iron Ore Company of Canada and the United Steelworkers of America, Local 5795,
is indeed a class act that I doubt occurs in too many other workplaces.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all those who
retired, and their families, a long, happy and healthy retirement.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence of, in the
gallery today, Mr. Dave Porter, Vice-President of the Iron Ore Company of
Canada, responsible for Human Resources, and Mike Sefsik, who is the Manager of
Human Resources for the Iron Ore Company.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Bill Barry on the
success of the educational reality series, The Real Game. The game consists of
educational activities where participants simulate real life by operating
fictional towns in the classroom. Through living in those communities, players
learn personal management, teamwork, decision-making and communication skills.
The intent is to encourage students to make informed decisions in the future.
The Real Game Series is currently played in twelve countries, including the
United States and the United Kingdom, where it has a huge following with
educators. Currently, the game is being adapted for other countries such as
Germany and Australia.
Though The Real Game has been used sporadically in Newfoundland and Labrador
for years, teachers in this Province are now being trained specifically to use
the resource. The Minister of Education has endorsed the product and recently
noted that the success of The Real Game Series indicates this Province's
potential to produce things for the global market. This first-rate product was
developed by a Newfoundlander, printed and packaged in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and distributed worldwide.
Studies have proven success of The Real Game Series. Students have
demonstrated a greater ability to make informed career decisions. The success of
The Real Game is very encouraging for educators of the Province and worldwide.
This a Newfoundland product that we can all be proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the success of Mr. Barry and wish him future
success with The Real Game Series.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide hon. members with very pleasant and good
news regarding a group of outstanding public service employees. This morning is
was my pleasure to participate in a ceremony at the St. John's Arts and
Culture Centre, honouring recipients of Newfoundland and Labrador's Public
Service Award of Excellence for 2001.
This award, Mr. Speaker, which is being presented this year for the very
first time, recognizes individuals and teams in our public service who have
demonstrated exceptional work performance and have made positive contributions
to quality of the work environment or quality of service to the general public.
It recognizes, Mr. Speaker, important attributes of our public service, those
being: leadership, valuing people, innovation and service delivery excellence.
A total of 102 individual and team nominations, representing more than 600
employees, were received for this award. This gives us a very important message
about the high level of ability and commitment, as well as the teamwork within
our public service. Public service employees take pride in one another's
achievements and acknowledge one another's good work.
After review by an external selection committee, five teams and ten
individuals were selected to receive the 2001 Newfoundland and Labrador Public
Service Award of Excellence. The Clerk of the Executive Council presented the
awards to fifty employees this morning from all regions of the Province.
Those honoured this morning, Mr. Speaker, are exceptional players on an
exceptional team. Their professionalism, their dedication, their energy and
their innovative ideas make our Province a better place to live and our
government buildings and offices better places in which to work. I know I speak
for all elected officials in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, when I say that we
have the utmost respect and appreciation for the public service and the work
that they do.
I extend congratulations and thanks on behalf of government and of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to these outstanding employees who were
honored today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table for this Legislature the names of
recipients of the 2001 Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Award of
Excellence.
If I might take just a minute to read them into the record because you may,
on behalf of all of us, want to send them an acknowledgment of their recognition
today.
The 2001 Public Service Award of Excellence recipients, Mr. Speaker, are:
Mr. Tom Beckett, from the Department of Government Services and Lands in St.
John's.
Mr. Leonard Bursey, from the Department of Human Resources and Employment in
Corner Brook.
Ms Joan Dawe, from the Department of Health and Community Services in St.
John's.
Mr. Roger Haynes, from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in
St. John's.
Mr. Gene Hickey, from the Department of Human Resources and Employment in
Grand Falls-Windsor.
Judgement Enforcement Remote Access Team, in the Department of Justice,
consisting of: David W. Jones, Pauline Butler, Robert Drake, Paul Foote, Sandy
Hounsell, Brenda Malone, Joan McCarthy Wiseman, Debbie North, Dianne Noseworthy,
Patsy Sheehan, Colin Tibbo and Joan Veitch.
Haseen Khan, from the Department of Environment in St. John's.
Labrador Tree Nursery Team, from the Department of Forest Resources and
Agrifoods: Mr. Bruce Roberts and Diane Montague-Blake from Happy Valley-Goose
Bay.
Anne-Marie McGrath from the Public Service Commission in St. John's.
Cheryl Penney, Mr. Speaker, from the Department of Human Resources and
Employment in Corner Brook.
Rod Regier, Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development in St. John's.
Kay Riggs, Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, Marystown.
The Team RuralEXPO 2001 from the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development: Terry Johnstone; Diana Cose; Carolann Harding; Paula Roberts;
Margie Slaney; Lynn Sparkes; and Denis Sullivan from the Eastern Region making
up that Team.
The Victim Liaison Officer Program Team from the Department of Justice with
Dave Dewling; Jerry Belbin; Terry Billard; Jim Courtney; Sam Flanigan; Hector
Freake; Elaine Hancock; Cecil Lynch; Dennis Morgan; Gordon Noseworthy; Glen
Petten; and Tony Tobin.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Western Region Quality Assurance Team from the
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, consisting of: Mark Lowe; Hubert
Anderson; Jeff Gould; Monique Hynes; Karen Loder; Tracy Slaney; and Alvin White;
all from the Western Region.
I would like for you, on behalf of all of us, Mr. Speaker, to consider
passing on your congratulations to these outstanding public servants.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly we want to be associated with the remarks of the Premier. When you
pass on your remarks, I believe you can certainly indicate that you pass them on
unanimously from all the House.
Not to be redundant, but certainly congratulations to the recipients of the
awards the Premier has outlined. I suppose, let it serve as a reminder to all of
us, in the Legislature, and the people in the Province generally, that the
servants who provide, on a day-to-day basis, the public services of this
Province, in many ways - on a day-to-day basis they ensure our roads are kept
clean, ensure that our health care system, with the stretched financial
resources that we have, is being delivered to the extent that we can deliver it,
and all public services. For many of our public servants, I suppose, the type of
gratitude that we owe them is difficult to explain.
I want to, on behalf of the official Opposition, render our association with
the remarks provided by the Premier, sending our congratulations as well to
these outstanding public servants for the job that they do on behalf of the
people of the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to join in congratulating these fine public servants on the
Awards of Excellence received today. I think it is fitting that the Premier, as
Leader of the Government, be the person introducing this statement in the House,
giving it the respect and honour that it deserves.
We do have, Mr. Speaker, a very high quality, professional public service in
this Province and we owe a lot to them as members of the public. It is a pity
that in making decisions - such as Windmill Bight, for example, made yesterday -
that government did not listen to the advice given by these professional public
servants when they asked for an environmental impact statement when they said
that proper evaluation processes had not been followed, and when they said you
had an obligation, as a government, to protect our parks and to protect our
environment instead of doing what the government did.
So, it is a pity, Mr. Speaker, that we do not pay more attention to the
public servants that we all pay that give advice on behalf of all of us in a
professional manner.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier. On March 27, the Hay
groups operational review of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's was
publicly released. In that report, which was commissioned by government at a
cost of something less than a half million dollars, it questioned the competence
of emergency physicians at the Janeway, and, in fact, questioned the quality of
health care at that institution. This government has already been asked, in this
House, to retract these comments and apologize to the doctors in question, but
they refused to do so. The physicians, themselves, have also written government
repeatedly and asked for an apology and retraction but, again, no action by this
government. Now, out of anger, frustration, embarrassment and concern for their
reputations, they are now prepared to withdraw services from the Janeway as of
8:00 a.m. on Thursday morning.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, himself, today to stand in this
House in order to avert an effective closure of the only dedicated children's
emergency department in this Province; by standing in this House today and
publicly refuting those comments and retracting those statements and apologizing
to those physicians for the insults that were rendered upon them in that report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This issue has been raised in the House previously in response to the Health
critic, the hon. Member for Trinity North, when he raised this very issue. My
response to him was that, in fact, we have not associated ourselves with the
comments that are in that report. I stated publicly that we certainly do not
concur with the statements that are made there.
The letter that the Leader of the Opposition references, I received last
weekend. We are looking at doing a response to the letter. This government and
this department has not in any way said anything disparaging with regards to the
doctors we have working at the Janeway. We have stated publicly that we do not
agree, and we have also said that we feel that there is no reason for anyone to
believe that the quality of service that is being provided at that health care
facility, that they have any reason to be of any doubt.
I am not quite sure in terms of Leader of the Opposition and the doctor's
concern. My understanding is, the letter was delivered at 12:30 today. I still
have not seen a copy. It is rather interesting. I was here in the House all
morning with my officials, from 9:00 this morning, dealing with the Estimates of
my department, and we did not leave here until 1:15 p.m. We were kept here in
this House until 1:15 p.m. today, trying to deal with the issues. It is rather
interesting. In terms of the Leader of the Opposition wanting to take the issue
seriously, I am sure he will recognize that I need some time to get briefed on
the issue as well.
In terms of the issue generally, the issue is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the beginning, the issue that the
Leader of the Opposition has raised, and the doctors are referencing in their
comments, relates to one item in the Hay Report, albeit it is an important one.
It is important from their perspective. It is not this minister who stated that.
It is not this department who stated that. It is not this government who stated
that, and this minister has stated publicly that we are not in agreement with
the statements that are made there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question was originally for the Premier. The Minister of Health has now
stood and indicated that for some reason they were delayed in the House today
and the Opposition are somewhat involved in this information not being made
available to him. Well, on March 27, this report was released. On April 10, the
doctors wrote government, wrote the Health Care Corporation, and asked for an
apology and asked for those statements to be withdrawn. On April 17, the Health
critic in this House questioned that minister and asked him to withdraw those
statements and apologize. That is a month ago, as recently as two weeks ago, and
three weeks ago the letter was written.
I ask the minister: Is he prepared to withdraw those comments, to refute
those comments, and to publicly apologize to those doctors now? Or, by not doing
so, is he telling the people of this Province that we do have a serious problem
with health care and with treatment at the Janeway?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to follow the Leader of the
Opposition's line of questioning. I just responded and gave him the
information to the very question that he is asking again.
The comments that he references are not comments that were made by this
minister or made by this department. I have responded to this in the House and I
have stated it publicly, that we do not agree with the comments that were
contained in the Hay Report. We have also indicated and made it clear to the
people of the Province that in our opinion there is no reason for anyone to have
any doubt or any concern with regard to the level of care that is being provided
at the Janeway Hospital.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, one emergency physician has already left and
gone on stress leave as of last weekend. In less than forty-eight hours, all the
emergency physicians at the Janeway are going to leave that hospital. They are
not going to show up for work at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday. At that point in time,
the children in this Province are in jeopardy.
If the minister does not agree with the statements in the Hay Report, all I
am asking, and all the doctors are asking, is a simple apology. Will the
minister say he is sorry for the statements and apologize to the doctors?
Because that is all they want. That is all they are asking for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating what I have previously
said in response to the earlier questions, we have already disassociated
ourselves from the comments that are contained in the report. These are not the
comments of this minister. They are not the comments of this department.
Mr. Speaker, if it is merely a matter of, I am sorry and I apologize, then I
do that. If that is all it will take to satisfy the concerns of the people who
are out there, the doctors who feel aggrieved - and I sympathize with them. Any
time their professional integrity is being questioned, I understand where they
are coming from, but this minister does not agree with that. This minister does
not have that view or opinion of our health care officials in this Province.
This minister does not adhere to that view with regard to the doctors who offer
that very important service to the children of our Province.
I do regret that the doctors have seen it necessary to threaten to withdraw
services. I regret that is the action that they feel is necessary, and I would
hope that they would reconsider. I have directed my deputy to make contact with
them this afternoon, and I have offered to make myself available to meet with
them this afternoon, any time they are ready to sit down with me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The minister seems to be very well informed for someone who
did not have time to get briefed, but I thank the minister for his public
apology in this House of Assembly this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: I would ask the minister: Has he considered the legal
consequences of that report, and the statements that are in that report, that
talk about concerns regarding the training of the emergency physicians in that
department, their capabilities in emergency medicine, delays in providing
treatment, and the burden on the nursing staff? Has the minister considered the
legal consequences of that report, when hundreds of legal actions could be
launched against this government based on the comments in that report, based on
negligence?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the issue is a very serious issue. There is
nobody trying to downplay the seriousness of the issue. In terms of the legal
implications, the people within my department, when we received the letter from
the doctors some days ago, from their legal counsel, that matter is under review
and under advisement. The suggestions that the hon. member makes, I do not know
what the possibilities are. His background is legal and he would know better
than I what possible implications there may be.
My understanding is, in terms of the department's dealing with this
particular issue, I am satisfied that the issue from our perspective has been
properly dealt with. We are not in agreement with the comments as they reference
the doctors and the emergency service at the Janeway Children's Hospital. We
regret the fact that this situation has happened today, that the doctors have
threatened to withdraw their services; but in the event, Mr. Speaker, I have
also been informed - I received a note since I came in the House - that
communication has been made with the Health Care Corporation. In the event that
- yes, with prudent planning - if what none of us wants does happen, the Health
Care Corporation will proceed with some contingency planning, because obviously
we do have an obligation to ensure that this very important service continues
without any disruption. That is the challenge that we have. That is the
commitment that we need, all of us, to make sure that we are able to continue to
deliver on to the people and particularly the children of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: Did he or any of his officials in his
department have an opportunity to review that report before it was publicly
released, in order to concur with those statements that were in it concerning
emergency physicians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the report was
reviewed by my department and also by the Health Care Corporation, and in fact
there were some issues that were highlighted - this was one of them - and they
went back to the consultants and raised these concerns, and there were some
modifications made on the basis of that; but it is also my understanding that
the consultant said - and the issue here, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is with
the authors of the report, not with this minister, with this department or with
this government. In fact what they said was, they stood by what they had written
and were not prepared to make any further changes to it.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: So, in fact, government concurred with that report when it
was released.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Now I give the minister an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I
would ask him: Does he now wish to refute any other statements in the Hay study?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am at a loss to follow the hon.
Opposition Leader's line of questioning. I really do not know where he - you
know, this issue has been raised here. It has been raised publicly. It is
interesting, Mr. Speaker, when I arrived on the job a few weeks ago one of the
first issues that I was briefed on, when I arrived here, was this particular
one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, at that point in time the media were calling to
inquire about it and my deputy did a briefing for the media to inform them as to
what exactly was contained in the report, what comments were made there, and
what exactly the issues were. Mr. Speaker, that was done some weeks ago. Since
then the matter has been raised here in the House by the Health critic, the hon.
Member for Trinity North. I responded to it there and I responded today, saying
that the comments which are contained in that report are not the comments,
neither are they the view of this minister, this department, or this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. On November 16, 1999, this
government gave a commitment that as of January 1, 2000, the basic personal tax
for income tax in this Province would be reduced from 69 per cent of the federal
rate to 62 per cent of the federal rate. On January 1, 2001, it would be reduced
from 62 per cent to 55 per cent of the federal rate, and of course, the
commitment at the time was that on January 1, 2002, it would be down to 49 per
cent of the federal rate. I want to ask the minister, with today being the
deadline for filing income tax, why are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now
paying over 70 per cent of the basic federal rate, a higher percent than before
they instituted any tax cuts at all on personal income tax?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, we have control
over our own provincial tax rates, not the federal tax rates. We have had a
steady plan. The member opposite knows that we deferred this year of our own
third-year plan to put the $25 million in our pocket. We made it public so that
we could help maintain health care services and education services. I am
wondering now, is the member opposite suggesting that we should have spent more
money? I would like to know the answer to that question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before we separated from the federal rate, it was sixty-nine. The federal
rate was 17 per cent, the basic federal rate. Today it is sixteen. I am using
the old federal rate, minister. Today they are paying, in fact, over 70 per cent
of the old federal rate before deductions. Now, I would like for the minister to
tell us why, based on her commitments and a separate tax rate, why is the
average Newfoundlander and Labradorian today paying 26 per cent more in personal
income tax than you committed to give them during that tax break?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard his question, but
I will have a shot at it.
Mr. Speaker, we have done what we said we would do, and that was decrease our
tax rate over a period of years. We have done that over two years. Mr. Speaker,
we have done that over two years, and I would say to the member opposite, I
would challenge him. He has raised a similar type of scenario in the House
before, saying that we are paying more of the federal percentage, and by and
large people are paying more. I would challenge him today, and I offer to the
people in the Province: If you believe that, speak to my officials, and every
single case without exception are paying less taxes than they were.
Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe he is suggesting we shouldn't have taken back or
deferred the third year for this year, but we made a decision because health
care is our number one priority, to keep the money here and keep the services to
help grow health care, not cut health care.
Mr. Speaker, people are paying less taxes this year than they were last year,
unless, of course, they are making more money. There are more people working and
there are more people making more money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will say to the minister, I have talked to Chartered Accountants and people
preparing hundreds of incomes taxes, I have looked at hundreds of examples
myself, and the minister is misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I will explain, in Budget Debate this afternoon, for the
minister, if she would like to sit and listen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this government is misleading the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador into thinking they are getting tax breaks when, in
reality, they are not getting them.
My question to the minister is: Why won't the minister, Mr. Speaker, come
clean on this issue and tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the real
truth of what is happening today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Come clean, I say. Tell them. Tell them.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Relax, Loyola, relax.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. member has asked a question, now I ask him to give the minister an
opportunity to answer it.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the only person misleading the people here is the member
opposite. The only person! Talk about coming clean: Maybe he should stand up and
answer the question -
MR. SULLIVAN: You don't know what you are talking about.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he says I don't know. No one knows
anything unless he says it. That is the way it is. He is the only one who knows
anything here, obviously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That, Mr. Speaker, is why he is there and we are here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province will know, by
him answering one question, and maybe he should come clean. Are you paying less
taxes this year than you were last year, or more?
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) and making less money.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, you must be making a whole lot more money than the
rest of us, I would say to you, because everyone is paying less taxes this year
than they were last year, unless they are earning more money, and that stands to
reason. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today my questions are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The members on the other side are a bit testy today.
Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation.
This past Thursday in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation, on questions from myself, left the impression that she and
officials of her department knew very little about the proposed changes to the
trouting regulations. Now that the minister has had more time to check into this
matter, would she now confirm that in fact officials of her department have been
involved with this issue for some time and that the department is receiving
pressure to accept these changes as they are?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do appreciate the opportunity to clear up the misinformation which has been
caused as a result of the member's question last Thursday, and the subsequent
news articles that were bled. Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans have confirmed in numerous interviews since that time -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If members wish to converse, I ask that they do it outside the Chamber while
Question Period is going ahead.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans have confirmed in numerous interviews since the question in
the House, the
interpretation that was being promoted by the member opposite is
completely wrong. It is totally inaccurate. The suggestion that the amendment to
the regulation was going to institute a minimum length of thirty centimetres has
been said to be totally false.
What was provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was that this was
a conservation technique that was being suggested to provide the capacity for
that department if conservation warranted, to single out one species, if
necessary, and institute a very specific size limit as needed; that the thirty
centimetres that was suggested in the illustration was simply that. The
representative even went so far as to say that he realized, at this point, that
even using thirty centimetres was a mistake -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer.
MS BETTNEY: - even though he only put it forward as an illustration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the minister may be trying to spin out a point of view but, in
fact, sources tell me that officials of her department have known the details of
this issue regarding the changes to the trouting regulations for some time and
maybe even months. Are the officials of her department recommending approval and
support for these proposed trouting regulations? I have a nine-page document
here with the all the proposed changes, and it is not examples. It is proposed
amendment -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I believe the hon. member has asked his question.
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I indicated in my response to the
question last Thursday that I needed to get more information; because certainly
I said then, and I would repeat now, that I make it a practice to get accurate
information before providing information to the public, unlike my colleague
opposite who has run with very inaccurate information here -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: - and continues today to promote information which everyone
else has recognized is inaccurate, that the authors of it have contradicted
publicly on the radio, on the television, in the newspaper.
Mr. Speaker, this information, these amendments to these regulations were
developed as a result of major consultation. I have information provided by my
department since, which I will certainly provide to the member opposite, that
both the recommendations and the amendments were presented at the Salmonid
Advisory meetings held last November 29, which were looking for advice,
consultation and reaction, and have since been discussed with others.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, yes, members of my department have been involved
in this development and, as I indicated last week, I needed to get more
information. I have it. It has been presented.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that it is a complete contradiction of what
she said in his House on Thursday. I have in my hand the draft amendments to the
Newfoundland Fishery Regulations with respect to the trouting regulations in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and officials of her department have been
involved for some two months.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, again I ask the minister: Will she commit to
this House of Assembly, and thousands of trouters in this Province, to
vigorously oppose these undue, unnecessary changes to the trouting regulations,
as does the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the table that was presented with the proposed
amendments was purely for illustrative purposes and is attached to the
amendments according to the officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
not according to my officials, not according to the member opposite, but
according to the author of the regulations, to whose system they have to provide
this information that this table could have xx, .. 00, or thirty, or ten, or
five. It is simply for illustrative purposes, according to the author.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
I have asked before, for this government to do something about the lack of
assistance for high-cost drugs for people with Multiple Sclerosis and other
debilitating diseases. The only assistance in this Province, under the
provincial drug program, requires people to be on social assistance, or a low
income senior. Every other province in this country gets help. We are not
talking about universal drug coverage. What these provinces have is a co-payment
system with sliding scales based on income. At present, it would make financial
sense for people suffering from diseases like MS who have a decent income to
move to another province and earn half that amount because then they would get
help with the cost of their drugs which are quite expensive.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. COLLINS: I say to the minister, people are forced to spend their
RRSPs, their children's education fund, any savings they may have, and then,
Mr. Minister, your government will help them. I ask the minister: When can we
look forward, in this Province, to being treated like every other Canadian
citizen and receive help on a sliding scale when we have to purchase high-cost
drugs like those required?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member raises a very important issue. In terms of the demands for
drug care within this Province, we know that the demand has been increasing. We
also know that advancements in that field are bringing more and more drugs on
the market and a lot of them, as all of us in this House would be aware, bring a
fairly high price tag with them as well.
The hon. member references a fact in terms of comparing what is happening in
this Province with other jurisdictions. I think you have to acknowledge and
recognize that at the present time our drug subsidy program is at $73 million. I
think the hon. member would have to acknowledge that is certainly significant. I
think it is also fair, and I think it would be less than prudent for me, as
minister, and for us as government, not to ask of people who are coming forward
and looking for a particular drug, at least to undergo a financial assessment to
try and determine whether in fact they are able to purchase this particular
drug. Right now, that is the requirement that we make. I think, Mr. Speaker,
that it would be great if we could say, in response to every request that comes
in -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - that yes, we will put this on the formulary and yes, you
will be able to get it. That is not the reality and I think what we are doing
right now with the policy and practice that we do have in place, I think we are
just being prudent and we are being good stewards on behalf of the people of
this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador
West.
MR. COLLINS: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that he may be prudent
with government's money but the people out there, who are hard-working people,
are suffering as a result of their prudence. Two years ago -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him now to get to his question.
MR. COLLINS: Why is the minister insisting that in every other thing that
comes up about this Province, we are ahead of other Atlantic Provinces, that we
are doing good and great things over and above them, while we cannot meet the
commitment that they are making to their citizens in terms of helping them out
through a very bad time in their life?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member referenced the fact, if I heard him correctly, that this
minister has repeatedly been extolling the virtues of this jurisdiction as
compared to the other Atlantic Provinces. I think we have to recognize that we
certainly, I think, in some areas, acquit ourselves very, very well. I am not
suggesting that in terms of such an important issue as providing drugs to people
in this Province, who require them, that I would want to relegate it to that
type of level as to whether or not in fact we are able to measure up to the
standards in the other Atlantic Provinces. That is not what concerns this
minister in a sense of what I would prefer to do. The best thing that we could
have, if we could afford it, would be a universal program that would be
available to everyone.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: But, we recognize that is not the reality. That is not the
reality that we are dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that we are trying to respond to the
needs that are out there. We are, in fact, co-operating with the other Atlantic
Provinces in trying to work towards a common formulary.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. SMITH: - and we are doing what we can to address the very pressing
and important needs that the hon. member has raised.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure if this is the right
section or not,
presenting reports?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, I thought it was. It is a long time since I have been
up.
AN HON. MEMBER: How long have you (inaudible)?
MR. MATTHEWS: Not long, and I am back for a good while.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Always the bridesmaid and never the bride.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Report on Mining Leases and Mineral
Licenses issued for the period April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also present today the 2001 Annual Report of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to move the following Private Member's Resolution:
WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation,
business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life; and
WHEREAS provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair in
virtually every region of the Province; and
WHEREAS the condition of the Province's roads and highways are a
significant competitive disadvantage for Newfoundland and Labrador companies
that market products in Canada and the United States; and
WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and some 1,500 kilometres
of twenty-five-year-old paved roads in the Province; and
WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for provincial roads; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation admits $900
million is required in the long-term to bring our roads to a national standard;
and
WHEREAS the government has said it will divert money from the highway
construction on the Island over the next six years to build the Labrador
Highway; and
WHEREAS there is only $23 million budgeted in this year's Budget for
provincial roads which is completely insufficient; and
WHEREAS the Roads for Rail Agreement is coming to an end;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the government negotiate a new cost-sharing
will bring the quality of the Province's roads and highways up to North
American standards and contribute to the Province's overall productivity and
competitiveness.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today once again to present a petition on behalf of the people in my
district, and once again it has to do with roads, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member would just allow me to interrupt
him for a minute. I want to welcome to the gallery today Mr. Scott Wells, Mayor
of Cox's Cove, who is presently in the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition once again on behalf of the people in my
district and it has to do with the conditions of the roads in my district, Mr.
Speaker. Particularly, this petition is from people from the community of Angels
Cove on the Cape Shore, and St. Bride's. They send this petition along because
once again they are very concerned about the safety aspect of the roads in my
district, and it is something that these people have to deal with on a
day-to-day basis.
I have raised several petitions that have been brought forward to me from the
people of the Cape Shore area. It is not the only place in my district where we
need work on the roads, Mr. Speaker, but it is the area where these petitions
are coming from, where the people in that area have decided to speak out and
bring to the House of Assembly, through these petitions, the concern they have
with the roads in the area. The concern they have is that these roads are
touching on twenty-five years since they have been paved, especially the road
from the place we call Cuslett lookout on the Cape Shore over to the community
of Branch, through the community of St. Bride's and Cuslett, namely Route 100.
Then there is a side road to that, Route 100-16, which is what we refer to in
the area as Point Lance road. This road is in a deplorable condition. It has
been ongoing for a number of years now. The main area was paved from Patrick's
Cove to St. Bride's in 1979. Since then, there has been very little done in
regard to repairs and maintenance. These roads need some major work done. These
people have brought them forward because they believe there is a safety issue
here for the travelling public. We get buses that are travelling back and forth
from Point Lance and Branch in the Cape Shore on a day-to-day basis. There are
some major concerns there with seventy-two passenger buses and other buses
travelling, they have to steer away from holes in the road. It is a danger to
the students who are travelling. It is a dangerous to emergency vehicles.
Ambulance services and fire services are impeded by the fact of the road
conditions.
The people in the area are very, very concerned and they want to raise the
issue here in the House. They want to advise the minister that they are hoping
to have some funds spent in that area this year. I have had the opportunity to
speak to the minister on a couple of occasions on this particular situation. He
tells me he is still waiting for funds to be allocated in his department. I want
to stress to him the importance of putting this forward. I have with me today
some pictures that have been forwarded to me on the condition of the roads. I
will be passing these on to the minister shortly. I showed this to somebody this
morning and the person said to me: Is that a road? That just goes to show the
conditions that - the situation that people are dealing with.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speker, just for a minute to clue up.
People are very concerned, and I am sure when the minister looks at that he
will also question if this is necessarily a road. What we would like to see done
is the complete job done. We understand the fiscal restraints of the government
and, hopefully, the minister will see forward, that some necessary funding will
be required. It will certainly take care of some of the major problems that are
on these roads and to make it a safer place for the people in that area to
drive.
So I put forward this petition today on behalf of the people, knowing full
well that there are numerous other petitions en route here to me here in the
House, and as I receive them I will be glad to stand and present them in the
House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present today:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is charging sales tax on
its $3 tire recycling fee even though it does not charge sales tax on the
beverage container recycling fee; and
WHEREAS we feel it is unfair and unduly costly to consumers in Newfoundland
and Labrador to tax the tire recycling fee;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to remove the sales tax on the tire recycling fee.
Mr .Speaker, I have received a number of phone calls to my office. I have
sent out a number of petitions now. The people of this Province clearly do not
wish to pay sales tax on a recycling fee. I have no problem admitting that I
have sent out this petition. On this side of the House we listen to the people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we listen to what
people have to say instead of turning a blind eye. I have no problem admitting
to the Premier that I have sent out this petition. I am honoured to have sent
out this petition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Like I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I will say it to the
Premier: I am honoured to say that I have sent out this petition, and I am
honoured to present this petition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Unlike the crowd opposite, such as the members for
Labrador, I will present petitions in this House when I am given petitions to
present.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the tire recycling fee was put in place to
promote tire recycling. It is unconscionable that this government and the
Premier and the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Finance would impose
a tax on the tire recycling fee. That is certainly not what the people of this
Province are asking for when they are asking government to promote recycling in
this Province. To add a tax to a tire recycling fee is nothing short of a tax
grab by this Province. It is nothing short of a tax grab by the government of
this Province. It is a means, Mr. Speaker, of robbing every possible cent that
they can rob from the consumers in this Province. Some people in this Province
are struggling just to get by, struggling week by week to put food on the table,
to put clothes on their children's backs to send them to school -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: - and to rob every possible cent they can rob from the
people of this Province is criminal.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: - and the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, will
speak in the next election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair hasn't recognized anybody at this point.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I gives me pleasure today to rise and present a petition on behalf of
residents of Labrador West, and I will read part of the petition, Mr. Speaker:
WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6
million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Liberal government has announced that $97 million that is
remaining will be taken out of this fund and added to general revenues, the
undersigned petitioners believe the raiding of the Labrador Transportation
Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purpose of that Fund and a breach of
trust with the people of Labrador, and hereby petition the House of Assembly to
direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back into the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund to be spent on transportation initiatives in
Labrador.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that if any member of this House wants some copies of
this petition, of which I have many, I would be more than willing to provide
them with copies so that they can get up and speak and add their input into what
has happened to the money in this fund.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador are very concerned about this money
coming out of the fund because they know and I know, and member of this House
know, Mr. Speaker, that once that money comes out, Phase III of the
Trans-Labrador Highway is being seriously jeopardized because we do not believe,
Mr. Speaker, that this government will have the wherewithal to commit money to
funding that portion of the highway as they said they intend to do. All we have,
Mr. Speaker, in Labrador - they took $97 million from the fund and in return
gave a promise that they will not be around to meet; and if they are around, Mr.
Speaker, they will not have the ability to do so.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, not only the Phase III part but all other
road work that has been done in Labrador over the past number of years,
including the road sections that are already completed, the necessary upgrades
to that, money came out of this fund to provide for that work. That will not be
there in the future, Mr. Speaker. That money will be gone if government gets
their way and takes the money from the fund, as they have stated their clear
intention, and indeed have introduced legislation, because, Mr. Speaker, they
cannot take that money at the present time. They have to change the legislation
in this Province to make it legal for them to do so. That, Mr. Speaker, is on
their agenda for this spring sitting, something we will vehemently oppose when
the bill comes forward for discussion.
Mr. Speaker, many people rely upon the Trans-Labrador Highway to receive
goods for their business. People rely upon that highway to make a livelihood to
feed their families, and people use it to visit back and forth. Mr. Speaker,
with the deterioration that takes place on that highway each and every year, we
will now have to compete -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: - for the few meager dollars for transportation in this
Province, to do the necessary upgrades on the Trans-Labrador Highway, something
we did not have to do in the past, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to petition this hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and
Labrador regarding the public library located in Brigus. The petition of the
people who have signed this petition, Mr. Speaker, is to allow the operation of
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to continue, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed here, presented to
this House, asking that the hon. House consider to allot the necessary hours for
the operation of that library to accommodate the needs of the surrounding area,
and I speak in particular of the eight communities which surround that public
library, Mr. Speaker, and that would be the communities of Brigus, Cupids,
Georgetown, Marysvale, Makinsons, Cupids Crossing, Roaches Line and South River.
I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the prime mover of this particular
petition - I moved the petition just before Christmas, but these are some
additional names that have come in - was a young student, a Level II student,
Raylene White, who attends Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts. She brought this
to the attention of not only myself, but she presented a petition around the
communities and received about 500 names.
The point of the petition is that the Brigus Library, for the most part, has
been allotted, over the last number of years, simply ten hours of operational
time. Despite just that short period, that small allocation, I would say to you
that the librarian, Ms Elsie Percy, has certainly gone and provided an excellent
service, given the time that she has.
I speak not only for Brigus Library, I would say, Mr. Speaker, but I also
speak for libraries around Newfoundland and Labrador, and how important it is to
make sure that they have the basic allotment of hours, certainly more than ten
hours, but you need to look at allotments of twenty-plus hours for these public
libraries in order to meet the demands that are placed on them. I cannot stress
the importance of having access to the public libraries. It is most, most
important.
That is why this petition is coming forward, to encourage the government of
the day to look at the public libraries that are around this Province and to
absolutely ensure that they have the very minimum amount of hours - twenty-plus
hours, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker - to ensure that the needs of the public
are met in access to information and so on.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: I will just leave off, Mr. Speaker, in presenting the
petition in the hope that something may be done to take care of this very real
need.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today also to present a petition, one similar to one I presented last
year and a couple of weeks ago on roads in the district. I will read the prayer
of the petition.
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened: The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
WHEREAS the roads in Croque and Grandois are in deplorable condition and are
in desperate need of upgrading and paving; and
WHEREAS two-thirds of this road is an old forest access road that has
received little or no maintenance and therefore forcing residents of these
communities to travel over a very substandard gravel road and jeopardizing the
safety of the residents and other persons having to utilize it;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and in particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to make
this road a top priority and commit to begin the upgrading and paving of this
road this season;
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, as the petition points out, this is a very substandard road.
Two-thirds of this road is approximately twenty-four kilometers. Two-thirds of
the road, at least, is an old gravel road that was put in by forest logging
companies many years ago, probably twenty-five, thirty or thirty-five years ago.
Two communities depend on this road, their only access to the outside world, so
to speak. I fail to see how people in this Province can expect, and the
government can expect people in these communities to diversify their economy, to
build a tourism trade, to be able to move ahead and take advantage of the
opportunities around them when the basic infrastructure, like a road, is really
not at their disposal.
There is no way in this world that anybody is going to travel over the road
out to Croque. There is very little chance that people in any significant
numbers, tourism, tourist traffic, fifth-wheel rigs, RVs, are going to travel
out to Croque and St. Juliens-Grandois, to an area that has a rich culture,
steeped in history. Actually, Mr. Speaker, Croque was at one time considered to
be the capital of the French Shore. There is a very strong history here where
French rooms with the names of French sailors and French ships and the years
that they actually anchored in and fished from Croque, is carved in the cliffs
out there. There is evidence of an old French oven. There is a French graveyard
here. The opportunity for some tourism development, for some traffic into these
communities is substantial, but it cannot be realized without basic
infrastructure, such as a road.
Again, the community of Croque - I have to keep mentioning it - the harbour,
the bay, in my view, has tremendous potential from an aquaculture perspective.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. LUSH: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Government House Leader for a couple of seconds to clue up.
As I said, there is potential in this area. There are potential developments
for these communities but it is hard to realize these developments without basis
infrastructure, such as a road. I have travelled this road many times over the
past twenty years and I can say that it is absolutely deplorable. It just
highlights, once again, the need for a federal-provincial agreement on roads. In
the next ten years we will really need upwards of $1 billion spent on the roads
in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Northern Peninsula Highway is in a deplorable
condition and needs to be resurfaced. The Conche road, the Croque road, and the
side roads in The Straits of Belle Isle area need upgrading and resurfacing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to consider this petition on behalf of
the people of Croque and Grandois, and I urge the Minister of Works, Services
and Transportation to give it his consideration when he decides on his funding
allotments in the days to come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to move a series of Motions for first
reading. Rather than going through the tedious work of reading them all, I
wonder if hon. members would agree to give first reading of Motion 6 to 16
inclusive?
MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is it agreed that we do these Motions altogether?
It is moved and seconded that the appropriate ministers shall have leave to
introduce Bill 16, Bill 10, Bill 13, Bill 14, Bill 12, Bill 15, Bill 9, Bill 11,
Bill 19 and Bill 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. ministers
shall have leave to introduce said bills?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
O motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered read a second time
on tomorrow.
A bill, "An Act to Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill 16)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund
Act." (Bill 10)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991."
(Bill 13)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The Adoption Act." (Bill 14)
A bill, "An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance." (Bill 12)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 15)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The Automobile Insurance Act." (Bill 9)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Act." (Bill 11)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The City of St. John's Loan Act, 1978."
(Bill 19)
A bill, "An Act to Amend The City of St. John's Act." (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair inadvertently overlooked Bill 17.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to
introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, The City
of Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999
And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000," carried. (Bill 17)
On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion1, Mr. Speaker, the Budget. Motion to move "That
This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government."
I believe that the Member for Ferryland adjourned the debate.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was not really intending to talk again about income tax but I have been
compelled today by Question Period to spell out in fairly simple terms what this
government has done and how they are misleading and deceiving the people of this
Province into thinking they are getting a tax cut when we are not getting a tax
cut.
I am going to go back to the government's statement and what they said they
were going to do. I will tell you what they did and when they did it, basically.
On November 16,1999 - I will include details if the Member for Humber East wants
it. I will give as much detail as the member wants. On November 16, 1999, the
then Premier of the Province, Brian Tobin, and the then Finance Minister, Paul
Dicks from Humber West, announced what they called $175 million personal income
tax reduction to be phased in. Now, lets look at the math of this, if anybody
wants to check with a calculator next to him or take figures, they can do so. I
am just going to point out -
AN HON. MEMBER: I can do it in my head, boy.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would say the minister probably can, lots of room
there. I am only joking of course, I say to the minister. It is not intended in
any way - a bit of humor, I guess, won't go astray. We wouldn't want to
overtax that minister.
Here is what government said on November 16, 1999. They said: As of January
1, 2000, the basic personal rate shall be reduced from 69 per cent of the basic
rate to 62 per cent of the basic rate. Now, at the time, the federal basic rate,
in the lowest bracket - I am going to take the lowest bracket, rather than
complicate it with our brackets, because since that there are four federal
brackets and there are only three provincial brackets. I will take the lower
bracket that is not even the same, but it is very close, because our Province,
with bracket creep, is even taking more. I understood somebody indicated from
the Department of Finance a year ago that was another $11 million. I will leave
that aside, I will keep it simple.
The announcement at the time said 69 per cent to 62 per cent in January 1,
2000, and in January 1, 2001, it would go to 55 per cent. We got those two
decreases in taxes, they are telling us. I will tell you why we didn't get
them. They said, it is going to go to 49 per cent in 2002. So, they said, we
will shelve that last one, because we can't afford to do it.
Let's look at the rate. In 1999 and even 2000, at the rate, the federal tax
there was 17 per cent, and it went to 16 per cent. So, we separated that before
the federal went down. I am going to take the higher federal rate, what it was
at the time, just to give the benefit of the doubt and not hassle over that 1
per cent. I am going to take the worst case scenario, and take the 17 per cent
when the commitment was made. Now, 17 per cent of 69 per cent tax - I am going
to show you what we are paying now and what you said we are going to pay. That
is what I am going to do, I say to the Premier. The federal tax rate was 17 per
cent back at that time, and our Province was paying 69 per cent of that. Now, 69
per cent of 17 is 11.73 per cent. Now, they were going to reduce it to 62 per
cent of the then federal rate. The then federal rate was 17 per cent. So when
you take 62 per cent of the then federal rate, that comes to 10.54 per cent, but
we are still paying, right now, 10.57 per cent.
Then they said, the second rate, the one they gave us a year ago, was 55 per
cent of 17 per cent. That would have been 9.35 per cent. So, the two tax rates
should have put us down to 9.35 per cent, just the second one, and we are now
paying 10.57 per cent.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty with the Finance
Minister singing out, and the Member for Bay of Islands. She wanted me to
explain to her today, and I said I would, in this session under Budget, I would
explain the points here to her, but she is not prepared to listen, because she
doesn't want to hear the truth. That is why, she doesn't want to hear the
truth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make it clear, that there was never, at any time, a request
from the Minister of Finance to the member to explain anything. What I said to
the member opposite - and I hope he answers the question - is, are you paying
less tax overall? Tell the people of the Province, because I am sure they are on
the edge of their seats right now, Mr. Speaker, with all those numbers.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I realize your ruling there. It
is not a point of order. The minister has to learn the rules of this House. When
I have unlimited time that I am allowed to speak, I should be afforded that
courtesy, to have unlimited time, I say to the minister.
Maybe I mistook her. Maybe it was her asking the former Minister of Finance,
sitting next to her, to explain it. I am not sure, but I thought she asked me.
If I made that mistake, I apologize. I have told the former Minister of Finance.
He understood what I was saying.
Now, I am going to get back to, before I was interrupted, explaining why we
are being deceived, why we are being misled, into thinking we are getting a tax
cut, and we are not. It is very simple. In 1999, I say to the minister - and you
know it, Minister. You know it. It is in your booklet. It is in your books that
are produced, in your own government statement, that in 1999 the federal rate
was 17 per cent. Can somebody tell me that 69 per cent of 17 per cent is 11.73
per cent? They were going to reduce it two years ago to 62 per cent.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you saying (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, would the minister please stop interrupting.
I will say for the record now, I am paying less tax this year because I am
making less income this year than I did in the last several years, I say to the
minister. That is why I am paying less tax, I might tell her, and the minister
does not want to hear it but I am going to persist. I am on unlimited time. I
will stay here until July and talk about this, if I have to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I have dealt with this topic before. I had a couple of more
to deal with and now they do not want to hear the truth but I am going to give
it anyway, Mr. Speaker.
Sixty-two per cent of 17 per cent is 10.54 per cent. What are we paying now,
the provincial published rates, in the lowest tax bracket? It is 10.57 per cent.
That is only after the first decrease. The second decrease we should have gone
to 9.35 per cent. The decrease that they were going to give that they reneged on
in January would have been 49 per cent of 17 per cent which is 8.33 per cent.
That would have put us down to a bracket in which right now we are paying 26 per
cent more provincial tax that we were promised on November 16, 1999. That is
what we are paying on provincial tax.
I will get to another issue on bracket creep a little later, that the
minister did not know what it was. Basically, she did not know what it was last
year. I am going to explain how they are gouging more money out of people. I don't
mind if you are going to take the money but you tell them up front you are going
to take it. Don't take it by the back door and tell them on the front door you
are doing something different, because that is wrong.
Now, if you took the new federal rate - they knew that the federal tax was
coming down, that Paul Martin was going to decrease federal tax because he was
pressured so much by reform and Preston Manning on personal tax cuts, they
forced the federal government into getting a tax cut. Now the federal rate, the
lowest bracket, is 16 per cent; the lowest federal bracket today. If we had to
go with the new federal bracket, not the old one, with the new federal bracket -
I gave them the benefit and took the old one, but if we had to take the new
federal bracket: 69 per cent of 16 per cent is 11.04 per cent; 62 per cent of 16
per cent is 9.92 per cent; 55 per cent of 16 per cent is 8.8 per cent; and 49
per cent of that is 7.84 per cent.
If we had to keep separate tax, we would paying 7.84 per cent if they had to
live up to their commitments, not 10.57 per cent we are paying now. Also, I
might add, there is a 9 per cent surtax on provincial tax, over, I think, the
$7,000 level would be the surtax on provincial tax here in our Province.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, they did not even institute the full of the first
tax cut, not telling us we got two and they are just going to suspend the third
one, because the numbers do not add up. The numbers do not add up.
On top of that, what have they done? Not only that, here is what they have
done. Back when the announcement was made, the lowest personal rate of tax was
$29,590. The second bracket was twice that. It would be $59,180. That was the
second bracket, and the third bracket was just above that. Now, what has
happened since is that this government allowed inflation to creep into the tax
bracket. Bracket creep. I asked the minister and she said: I don't know. I
know what creep is, she said - she knew what a creep is - but she did not what
bracket creep is. Bracket creep, Minister, will allow inflation to eat into the
levels. So, if your income was $29,590 you would have paid the lowest tax rate,
but in two years' time, in four years' time, $29,590 is not the same
disposable income as it was two and three and four years ago. There is an
erosion, eating into your disposable income. What did the federal government do?
They said: We are going to stop eroding and eating away at it.
That is the thing, I remember, that the former Reform Party were adamant and
the PC Party talked about: this tax cut is cutting down disposable money. It is
lessening the impact. It is reducing jobs in this country and it is having a big
effect.
I have read in economic magazines and reviews lately, the impact - even by
Paul Martin, tells us - the impact that taxation cuts have had on the economy;
and this minister says: Oh, we cannot give you a tax cut because we cannot
afford to.
Basically, tax cuts induce people to go out and spend money and help promote
the economy. It is all part of the big picture. You cannot say this thousand
dollars or million dollars doesn't promote it, or this million or two does -
that you have to have a big chunk. Where, exactly, is the straw that broke the
camel's back? It is a progressive impact that it has as you give tax breaks.
Smaller levels are not as impacting. Higher levels are more impacting.
I cannot see why people today are filling out their income tax, and people
are paying 72 per cent, 74 per cent, 71 per cent of the federal rate. Even if
you took the old federal rate, we are still paying up to 69 per cent and 70 per
cent of the old federal rate basically, when we have been told we have a tax
cut. How do you get a tax cut when you take in more revenue and more income,
when you are paying more people in lower paying jobs?
This government is not telling the truth to the people. They are telling
them, we are giving something, and they are not doing it. You ask the people
today - you poll it, you talk to chartered accountants and CGA's, and talk to
people who are working in the financial area and doing income taxes - ask them
what they are paying? This is a complaint. If the minister has not heard it, she
is living in a vacuum. She is living away from everybody. She is in a bubble,
removed. She is in her ivory tower here at Confederation Building and does not
know what is happening if she believes that, because that is not the case.
Sit back, anybody, go back and look at your taxes. Look at your per cent of
federal taxes this year, what you paid, and compare what you paid in provincial
and federal last year. Look at it. Go back to your last year's taxes and the
year before and the year before and look at it and see, basically. Compare it to
last year in particular; because, as inflation creeps into the tax bracket, we
get a significant amount of money. I will probably ask the minister that on
Monday night in the Estimates. I am going to ask her how much is allocated to
each of these there, so she can be prepared on Monday to give me an answer to
that. I am going to be asking some of these questions, when we have the
Estimates, because they are questions we should know. We are entitled to know.
We are entitled to know the impact on each of these areas, and the increments,
because when you give certain incentives you need to know that there is going to
be a stimulation effect that is going to better us overall. That was the plan of
that. That was the plan in 1999 when the Premier then sat in that Cabinet there
and endorsed this proposal here.
Now, can you tell me why 62 per cent - actually, if you took 17 per cent of
federal tax at the time and take 55 per cent of it - we are supposed to have
gotten that rate - 55 per cent of 17 per cent, I say to the Premier, is 9.35 per
cent. Why are we now paying 10.57 per cent in the lowest bracket if we have two
levels of tax cuts? If we only got one, if they only give us the first year out
of the three, it would have been 62 per cent times seventeen before they
separated the tax, that is 10.54 per cent. We are paying 10.57 per cent. We did
not even get one full year out of the three years of tax cuts when we look at
the percent when we removed it. I removed it. I took the higher level before the
feds reduced theirs. So I would not be playing the game that government is
playing with numbers I took the worst-case scenario for us, or the best case to
present your case when I looked at it and tell us why.
That is only part of the reason why. That is only part of what is happening
on the tax system. There are other areas that have happened in the tax system,
apart from those percentages that we are playing. In fact, had we gone with the
tax cuts that we were promised, under the 17 per cent federal at the time, had
we gone with them we would be paying the lowest bracket today of 8.33 per cent.
Right now we are paying 10.57 per cent, which is 26 per cent more provincial tax
than we would have paid according to the promise.
Now, with the feds reducing theirs to 16 per cent, if we went to that level,
we would be down to 7.84 per cent from what, at the time, was eleven. If you
looked at 69 per cent of sixteen, it would be 11.04 per cent. We would have seen
a figure of over 30 per cent difference had you gone at the lower rate in taxes,
but it did not happen. We are paying more taxes than this government told us we
were going to be paying.
PREMIER GRIMES: Are you suggesting that we should reduce taxes
(inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will tell the Premier what I am suggesting. I suggest
when you stand up and tell the people of the Province - the Premier and the
Finance minister - you were going to do something, you should do it. You should
honour that and not try to hide behind false figures to justify what you have
not done. You should tell the truth, that you are going to do it or you are not
going to do it, that is all I am saying. I am not saying whether you should or
should not. We will have the access the figures -
PREMIER GRIMES: You don't (inaudible) what you believe in.
MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what I believe in. I believe that this
government is misleading the people on this. I believe that tax cuts stimulate
the economy, and when you give a commitment you should have continued and
finished the commitment. I said that here. I said that months ago, Premier. You
must not have been listening. I said that months ago that they should have gone
ahead. I did a news release. I went on the public record and told where we were
on that issue. I did not hide behind false figures and so on, misleading
statements that this minister -
PREMIER GRIMES: You are saying (inaudible) spending more money than we
have. We are spending too much money when we should take in less. So now you got
both those figures at the same time.
MR. SULLIVAN: What is the Premier trying to say? Did you say you taught
math in school, I ask the Premier? He said he taught math. Now, I am starting to
really wonder. Was that the old math or was it the new math? I am wondering if
it was the new math or the old math because it just does not add up, Mr.
Speaker. It just does not add up what he is saying. It does not add up. I guess
it has been a long while since he has been in the classroom. He has gone a bit
rusty. He is about fifteen or seventeen years up in the classroom and rust does
set in. It does set in, I might say.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Loyola, that was before (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Now we have the Minister of Finance yapping again and
trying to interrupt me again, Mr. Speaker. She is at it the whole time. I did
not interrupt her on her Budget Speech, so I would like not to be interrupted
here. Go back to the public record and you will see.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Loyola, say that again so the people can hear it.
MR. SULLIVAN: She is not using parliamentary language either, Mr.
Speaker. She is not using parliamentary language, but I won't waste my time
calling for an apology because the member does not like apologizing and owning
up to the truth, I might add.
I am going to continue and talk further about taxation which I had hoped that
I had put this to rest before. On top of all that, here is what else they are
doing. Here is why we are paying over 72 per cent, not just because they
deceived us in terms of the cut - I will mention one thing they done because the
tax reduction percent just does not measure up, number one. Secondly, bracket
creep; at the time the federal bracket was at $29,590 the lowest bracket. The
provincial bracket was $29,590, the lowest provincial bracket. Today the
provincial bracket stays exactly the same as it is. The lowest federal bracket
has now climbed, I might add, to $31,677, which means on over $2,000 worth of
income we are now paying the middle bracket when we should be paying the lower
bracket, and that is at 16.16 per cent. That is from 10.57 per cent. So we are
paying almost 5.5 per cent more tax because of that shift, that overlapping
$2,000 that they took away. Move up to the next bracket and they are doing the
same thing. It is higher because of the percent. We are taking out of there
between $2,000 and $3,000. We are taking out of the next bracket - our Province
is collecting at a rate of 18.02 per cent when they would be collecting at 16.16
per cent. That is what they are doing. That is the sneaky game of deception that
is being played here on taxation and telling people that we are giving them tax
cuts. Yes, they gave tax cuts at the front door and took them away at the
backdoor, and they did not even give at the front door what they said they would
give. They only gave one-third of the way, not the two-thirds they advocated.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I will give leave if the former minister wants to stand and
tell me why 10.57 per cent, that is only about 62 per cent of seventeen, if we
got two levels of tax cuts down to 55 per cent, how do you get 55 per cent of
seventeen and get 10.57 per cent? It should be 9.35 per cent. That is there. If
anybody could show that to me, I will sit down and listen. If they can do it, I
will not get up out of my seat again. I will never get up out of this seat
again, if they can show that. They just cannot do it, because 62 per cent times
seventeen is 10.54 per cent and we are paying 10.57 per cent. If we were getting
the 55 per cent, it would be 9.35 per cent. We are not getting the tax they told
us we were getting. Not only that, not only did they stall the third one, they
didn't even give us the second one. We did not even get the full effect of the
first one, basically.
In fact, the reason we are paying more taxes, when you cut taxes - how do you
cut taxes and get more money? More people making more income? No, you have more
people working but in lower level jobs. There are a lot of people in this
Province working for $5,000 and $6,000 a year. An average fish plant worker in
Newfoundland and Labrador last year made $5,500, approximately. Between $5,000
and $6,000 on worked income, and another $5,000-some they averaged on
unemployment insurance or EI, as it is now called. So that is about $11,000
split almost equally between work and EI, and at that level you do not pay much
taxes. I can tell you, you do not pay very much taxes on that amount because the
basic personal exemption - I dealt with these a bit earlier but I am compelled
to make reference to them again.
The basic personal exemption; what we have federally with the inflationary
factor, our Province does not move with that. Our basic personal exemption is a
different level than federally. Our spousal amount is a different level than
federally for someone who can claim their spouse, if the spouse is not working
or has a low income; it is different. For people going to university or
post-secondary institutions, it is $400 a month federally and only $200
provincially. You pay more. For somebody who is disabled, the disability
deduction is a $2,000 difference. They clawed away at every single area, and the
basic non-refundable tax credit. They have clawed away at every single thing
they can get their hands on in the back door that they try to tell you they put
in the front door. Every facet of tax. Tax forms here, I have gone through them,
I have looked at them. Anybody who looks at basic personal amount, exemption
federally differs from provincially. Education deductions differ. It differs for
disabled people, and I have spoken to disabled people who called me, who came
into my office, people on disability who came in here and asked the same
question, and people who have called me from all over this Province. I have had
calls referred on this issue and I know a little bit about it myself because I
have prepared, I guess, in the hundreds if not thousands of taxes over the
years. I am a little bit familiar. I will admit I am not an expert on taxation,
but questions I do not know I talk to accountants, chartered accountants and
CGAs, and I have talked to people on them and they have concurred with me on
this one. They have concurred with me on this one, that they are seeing their
clients are paying 72 per cent of the federal rate, and we were supposed to get
a tax reduction. What a farce, we are finding out, on taxation here from this
government. The minister has the audacity to stand up here and tell us we have
tax cuts. We got tax cuts, she tells us.
Seeing we have quieted them down over there with the truth, I am going to
talk about something different now, in taxation.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and if I get provoked about it again, I am not going
to let something that is not true stand out there because the people of the
Province have a right to know these figures. I am prepared to sit down with
anybody and discuss this. If anybody can stand and tell me how the 55 per cent
we are getting of the 17 per cent federal is 10.57 per cent, when it is over 62
per cent - it is over 62 per cent - we have not even got the second level of tax
cut. That is a game of deception, a game of misleading people. I am not saying
it is intentionally. If it is not intentionally, it is really stupidity or
trying to con people in the Province, if that is the case.
There are numerous other areas I want to address under this particular
budget. I want to talk about health care next. Now, health care is an area that
is near and dear to the hearts of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I might
add, health care is the number one priority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
When you look around the Province and talk to people on a regular basis, I spoke
to a person today, just an example, and I will not bring it up here in the House
but I did send the minister a note on it today and I am not going to discuss it
here, but just one example of -
MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): On a point of order, the hon. the Minister
of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I understand that the hon. member has unlimited time. I would not normally
interrupt him, either, and I do not normally rise on points of order in this
House but I think it is appropriate from time to time to point out and ask the
Chair to consider the type of language that the hon. member is using in the
speech that he is giving, in the Budget speech. I have been making some notes.
He was referring a few minutes ago to the government as being engaged in a
sneaky game of deception. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that not only is the
government not engaged in a sneaky game of deception, that the language in and
of itself is not parliamentary. It is inappropriate, and it conveys not only
information that is not factual, and a wrong perception; I think it diminishes
the view that people have of us in this hon. House generally, when we can stand
to our feet and accuse each other of those sorts of things in that type of
language. Then he carries on, Madam Speaker, and speaks about: this is the type
of con job or the type of conning that government is doing on the people of the
Province.
Madam Speaker, this government is not in the business of trying to con
people. Government is not in the business of trying to deceive people.
Government is not in the business of trying to provide anything other than a
fair and accurate accounting for the finances of the Province, and a fair and
accurate description of why it is that we make the decisions we make and the
basis on which we make them.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that the hon. the member be reminded that language
that is unparliamentary serves no useful purpose. It serves no purpose in
allowing him to convey what it is he is trying to say, and it serves no purpose
in raising the view of the people of the Province with respect to the level of
respect that I believe they have for this House and for the members who sit in
this Legislature.
Madam Speaker, I would ask you to take under advisement the comments that I
am making and give the hon. member some direction with respect to the type of
language that is or isn't unparliamentary. Now, if the descriptive words that
I have picked up from him today are parliamentary, then I accept what he is
saying as being appropriate. If descriptive words such as sneaky games of
deception and con jobs are appropriate parliamentary language, then I accept
what he is saying and I accept the language he is using, but I would ask the
Chair to consider whether or not, in fact, these words are unparliamentary and,
if so, to direct the hon. member, if not chastise him, to certainly direct him
to be more prudent, to be more circumspect, to be more vigilant, to be more
cautious, and to be more honourable in the descriptions that he uses to
represent to the people of the Province the practice of this government.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of
order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, to the point of order, the minister should
know - he has been here the same length of time that I have been. He has
participated in some contentious and hotly contested debates in the House; but,
for his information, I would like to point out to him that since 1958 it has
been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions: arrogant - the member
didn't use that although he could have; barefaced falsehood - he didn't use
that but he could have; blackmail - he didn't use that but he could have;
casting reflections - he didn't use that but he could have; deceive - been
ruled parliamentary. The member has certainly been within the context of rules
established in this House long before either he or I or other members in this
House had been elected to this Chamber. All of the statements, the language
used, the context that has been used by the Member for Ferryland, has been in
accordance with the practice, traditions, expressions and what has been deemed
acceptable; not by us but by the rules set down both in Beauchesne and Erskine
May in terms of what is parliamentary and what is correct in terms of
parliamentary language.
The minister obviously does not know that. The Member for Ferryland, the
former House Leader, knows that and he has been, Madam Speaker, as I submit to
you today - any thoughtful, sober-looking and frank assessment of the language
put forward, the context in which it has been used in terms of the Budget Debate
by the Member for Ferryland - has been more in keeping with the practiced
traditions and the acceptable expressions that we use in this House as we try to
explain ourselves to the people of the Province, and the issues of the day to
the people of the Province.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I very intentionally and deliberately prefaced my remarks by suggesting, and
by stating, that if the language being used by the hon. member was, in fact,
parliamentary, that I accept the use of that language in the House. I have no
problem with using accepted parliamentary language; but I also made the point -
and I want to reiterate the point - that notwithstanding whether or not these
words are parliamentary or not, they do nothing to enhance the image of the
people who sit on either side of the House. They do nothing to add positive
descriptiveness as to what our non-impugned motives are as members of this
House. I believe that every member who sits in this Legislature, all forty-seven
of us now, are honourable people. I believe we come here to do an honourable and
respectable and an honest job on behalf of the people in the Province. To the
extent that the hon. member uses language parliamentary accepted by Beauchesne
or Erskine May or whomever, because I readily admit I am not as familiar
with the green book that the hon. the Member for Kilbride uses as his point of
reference when he is up on points of order. I admire his knowledge of the green
book, I call it, and the diligence that he pays to parliamentary procedure and
parliamentary language. But, Madam Speaker, I submit to you that notwithstanding
whether or not the green book contains these words as being acceptable, they do
nothing to enhance our image and they do nothing to seek to convey and honest
perspective as to what government is doing.
The least I would ask of the hon. member, because I believe it would be his
intention and his desire, is to be honest in terms of his descriptiveness of the
intent of the actions of this government. I believe he believes that we are
honourable people. I believe he believes that we are doing a good job. I also
know that he has to play the role of an Opposition critic and I cut him that
amount of slack, but I am not prepared to cut him the amount of slack that gives
him the latitude to use language that is - if not insulting- at best diminishing
and confusing to the people of the Province. I believe it does him no credit to
be involving himself in that type of ling-grittery'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: I am not sure who is confusing who. I do know that the
Minister of Mines and Energy has employed a tactic that the government has used
from time to time with less frequency, I might add, over the last several weeks
since the House opened, but a tactic, nonetheless, that has caused a good - they
say that a good defence is a strong offence. That is what we are seeing from the
Minister of Mines and Energy today.
Maybe what he should have done, Madam Speaker - because nothing that the
Member from Ferryland, nothing he said today was unparliamentary in this House.
Not one single word, expression, or the context in which he used it was
unparliamentary.
The Member for Ferryland, on a very serious matter, dealing with taxation, in
terms of showing the people of the Province correctly how government has said on
the one hand, of the tax benefits that we are going to receive, yet on the other
how they have, in a certain way, in a way that he has defined, demonstrated to
the people of the Province why we are not receiving that tax break.
Maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy would be well advised, if he wants to
deal with the issue at hand, to demonstrate to the people of the Province how
he, as part of a government and as part of a Cabinet, and as the former Minister
of Finance, could stand up and ask the Member for Ferryland, could he have
fifteen minutes of his time, Madam Speaker, so that he could correct, if he
believes the Member for Ferryland is wrong, correct what the Member for
Ferryland has said is incorrect.
I would suspect that the Minister of Mines and Energy is not going to do that
because he knows full well that the Member for Ferryland is exactly right and
dead on in what he has portrayed to the people of the Province when it comes to
the debate on taxation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Maybe he would like to take advantage of that, and I am
sure that the Member for Ferryland and we as well would give him that
opportunity to try to stand and correct, if he believes what the Member for
Ferryland has said is wrong or non-factual or not true. I submit, Madam Speaker,
that he will not do it because he knows the difference. He knows full well that
the Member for Ferryland today is standing, dealing with an issue forthrightly,
dealing with an issue correctly, and explaining to the people of the Province
the exact nature of the tax cuts or non-tax cuts that this government has
provided to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I say to the hon. member: It is not my phone, nor has my bell rung either,
nor has my bell been rung, but I have a feeling, Madam Speaker, that the hon.
the Member for Kilbride is a little testy because he fundamentally believes that
the use of proper and good and the higher standard of ethical language in this
House would serve us all better. I will not take the opportunity of taking
fifteen minutes of the hon. member's time. I believe I have already taken too
much of the hon. member's time because he was, rightfully so, debating and
participating in the debate. So, I will not take him up on that offer, but I
would ask him to pay attention.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. minister has had sufficient time for the point of order and the
Chair rules no point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I asked the former minister and I asked the minister to stand up and refute
the figures I gave him and he did not do it. I don't mind if anybody wants to
stand up and refute the figures that I have used. I will give them time to do
it. I just said what this government did is sneaky. I said it is sneaky, what
they did. I will say it again in the House, in the House, outside the House,
from here to Timbuktu. I said they are deceiving, basically, deception - the
government - deception to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador . If that is
unparliamentary and it is proven to be, which I know it is not, I would have
withdrawn it. I said they are misleading, and it is not unparliamentary. They
are misleading the people. I did not say deliberately misleading. That could be
ruled to be unparliamentary. I am well aware of words that are parliamentary.
The context in which they are used can also determine whether they are
parliamentary, whether I said the people of the Province are being deceived or
whether I said the minister is deceiving the people of the Province.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) had a big bill to pay.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Finance, for the first time since I can
remember, the first time in a long while, I got a nice refund cheque, I might
say to the minister, in a long, long while. That is more than I can say the
minister has had in a long, long, long time, I might add. That is it. When you
overpay your taxes, you get money back. That is basically the way it happens.
When you underpay them, they come looking for it. That is the way it works when
you underpay it. Can the minister stand and say the same thing, that he got a
refund on his taxes?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SULLIVAN: No, he cannot do it, that is right. Can he stand and say
the figures I used are wrong, and tell me what the right figures are, and how he
arrived at them? Because I have explained how I arrived at it. I took your
statements, I took the figures published by this government, and I took the
percentages, and the federal rate prior to the change, the current federal rate,
and they cannot be refuted, those figures, basically, because they are taken
from government records and the methods used to assess tax here in this country
and in this Province.
Now, I wanted to talk about health care before the minister got up on his
little tirade there. I think he was only trying to use up some of my unlimited
time. I don't know if that was his strategy. If they keep doing that, Madam
Speaker, I just might stay here until July and talk until July, I might add.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: We won't need to reconvene the House in the fall; we will
be continuing the House in the fall. That is what I might add.
MR. MATTHEWS: You will have as much time left in July as you have now,
because it is unlimited.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. If the minister wants to get up and give
me a little break now and then, providing he makes sense, Madam Speaker, I haven't
heard him make sense very often, I might add, not too often.
Now, I want to get to talking about health care, a budget that we are being
told is a $1.4 billion budget, representing about 45 percent or 44 per cent of
the expenditures of the programs here in our Province, of our budget. It is a
very significant area, I might add.
The Leader of the Opposition today raised a question, the Hay Report. The
paid people marched in from Ontario without doing proper in-depth investigative
work and analysis, drew conclusions on the health care system in our Province
and insulted, basically, skilled doctors who have been providing a great service
at the Out-Patients at the Janeway. I know anybody in this House who has visited
there or had children visit there.... I will not say I had the privilege to
visit the Janeway; it is never a privilege to have to go to a hospital with
somebody at all. It is a misfortunate, I guess, more so than a privilege, but I
have had to go there and most other people have. I think the reception at the
Janeway has been outstanding, and I have never seen it questioned. There are
some tremendous specialists at the Janeway Hospital. What should have been done
in this report, what should have been done when the Hay Report, without proper
in-depth analysis and without knowing the full operations involved in our
system, the minister should have come out with a news conference and had a
concurrent statement indicating that we do not support, we take offence to the
attack on the doctors and so on and the professional people here in our
Province. Come out and stand up for the people who are out providing health care
service. That is what should have been done. People march in, they wanted a
quick report. Maybe they are not at fault because maybe the timeline they gave
to do it did not give the chance to do the in-depth analysis. I do not know what
the reason is, but this government has to be responsible.
They fund the health care system, commissioned the Hay Report, came through
to look at ways of saving money in the system. You didn't have to go to
Toronto to get a consultant to tell you that, if you keep closing down beds, you
will save money. I don't think we need to be rocket scientists to know that if
you keep closing beds and do not put people in the hospital when they need it,
it is going to save money.
Lengthen the waiting lists. Talk about waiting lists in emergency, I will
give you an example. Back in March, I once again had the misfortune to have to
go to the emergency of the general hospital with my son who separated his
shoulder at 10:15 p.m. on a Friday evening, right from a hockey arena. He
separated his shoulder and was in pain, and sat in emergency from 10:15 p.m.
until 6:15 a.m., with ice packs and lying in the emergency room for eight hours.
Actually, eight hours before he could see a doctor in the emergency room. When
we went in, the waiting list was five hours. They changed it to six hours, to
seven hours. Waiting lists in hospitals are inordinately long and people - if a
separated shoulder, and you are in pain, is so minor and it takes eight hours,
God help the people who have less minor injuries assessed. How long are they
going to have to wait?
I know of people who came into emergency, they were so sick they could not
sit up. They had to go out and lie down in a car in the winter and start the
car, and their spouse stayed in the waiting room to hear when their name came up
so they wouldn't miss it. They went for several hours, ten to twelve hours; a
person from Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I can tell you hundreds of stories just
like that and a lot worse, of what is going on. That was not last year or the
year before. That story I told you was a case in March, in my own personal case.
Look, we are run off our feet. The doctor came in and he could hardly stand
up. He could hardly talk he was so tired. The doctor was so tired, that is a
fact. I really pitied the doctor then, he seemed to be so fatigued. I asked the
question: Don't you have two doctors on at a time? Sometimes.
I know a doctor, personally, who specialized in emergency medicine, worked in
Ontario for a few years, graduated, a good doctor, married a Newfoundlander and
came home here to go to work and look for a job in an emergency department. He
got a shift every several weeks. That person bought a house, bought a nice home,
with two young kids, in Mount Pearl and that person flew back to Ontario for two
years. He flew back for a month and worked, and then came home for a few days or
a week and went back again. After two years, just last summer - last June, I
believe, I am not sure of the exact date, or September, last summer anyway -
that person put their house on the market, sold it, weighed which offer they
were going to take they had so many in Ontario. They went up to make either
double the money, double or even triple the money, with reasonable working
conditions there in the province and left. They would not hire anybody else.
They did not want to hire. The corporation does not want to hire an extra
doctor. No matter how long you are in there, they do not want to hire. They
turned down people and did not want them, basically. They did not want extra
people. They do not want to reduce waiting lists. There has to be a solution.
When someone is in pain and have injuries and so on, there has to be a
reasonable period of time. I mean, that is unacceptable. A lady called me just a
couple of weeks ago from my district, and the Member for St. John's West
raised that in the House and I will just relay it as an example. This lady from
my district who had some complications and minor surgery and possibly further
surgery, went to her doctor and the doctor gave her a requisition and wanted her
to have a mammogram. That person went and had a mammogram last September and
went to get a mammogram just a few months back and was told January 17, 2003 you
can get a mammogram. Here, the minister stood in this House and made
announcements on how we are improving breast screening. How we are improving
early diagnosis.
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is trying to interrupt me again. The Minister
of Mines and Energy is not in his seat even. You are not entitled to speak when
you are not in your seat. Now, he is over next to me shouting and interrupting.
This is a serious matter, I might add. This is a very serious matter, and the
Member for St. John's West raised it.
The lady was forty-eight years old with a requisition from her doctor, who
went for minor surgery and possibility other surgery, was told she could not get
a mammogram until January 17, 2003. It was recommended by the doctor that she
needed it. That person went to visit her in-laws in Ontario, a little community
in Ontario called Uxbridge. She inquired: How long does it take to get a
mammogram here? Oh, you can get one here within a month. Her daughter's
mother-in-law called and within one week - in a little, small community called
Uxbridge, Ontario, she got a mammogram in a week and was told here in 2003, for
a person who had complications. To me, that is not promoting early diagnosis.
We had been told that we were going to shift. When we changed the money - all
the savings we were going to save when we consolidated hospitals we are going to
put that into community health; prevention and promotion. We are going to take
the money and put it into (inaudible). To tell someone who needs a mammogram
that they cannot get one for a year, how is that going to get early detection?
That person in a years' time, if there are problems and complications, could
have something diagnosed that may be fatal in a year. I know people who have
been diagnosed and died within two months; several people. Numerous people that
I could name in the past year, some close friends. Everybody knows of some
people in those categories where that has happened.
We have not done the shift. We have not put it into promotion and prevention
and we have not improved our diagnostic very much here in our Province. We have
one MRI which is used for ten or eleven hours a day. Basically, in other
jurisdictions some use them twenty hours. You can get one in a week, in some
areas, an MRI. People are being told in one year. Oh, it is not everybody who
should have an MRI. Well, in the States they are talking about the bad system
they have there. Down in the United States you can go and get an MRI in a day.
Early detection could save your life. It could kee