Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 14 March 1997 (43rd General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 3)
1997-03-14
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 14,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIII No. 3
The House met at 9:00 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will surely
agree, the unique geography of Coastal Labrador poses challenging constraints to
economic growth for the communities along the coast. Government recognizes that
these special constraints warrant that special consideration be given to the
region so that the coastal communities and economies can grow, and job
opportunities can be created.
This is particularly true in the fishery. A shortage of raw
material for plants has been a chronic problem, especially in Northern Labrador.
Government recognizes that the blanket fisheries policies do
not always work for Labrador. That is why government established, and will
continue to maintain, a policy that fish landed in Labrador must be processed in
Labrador. The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture also continues to open up
other opportunities to make additional resources available to Labrador plants.
Labradorians must be given the opportunity to benefit from marine resources
adjacent to them.
Mr. Speaker, today the Premier is in Makkovik to announce yet
another initiative that will make additional fish resources available to
Labrador. On his behalf, I am happy to inform you that government is leasing the
middle-distance vessel the Nain Banker to the Torngat Fish Producers
Co-operative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: This will give the Co-op the flexibility it
needs to harvest resources in the region, and improve the economic viability of
its operation in Makkovik.
The Nain Banker is ideal for fishing off Coastal
Labrador, particularly for northern turbot. In fact, this vessel was one of the
two middle-distance vessels that landed northern turbot at Makkovik in 1993
during an experimental project that proved the feasibility of these vessels
prosecuting the deep water turbot fishery off Labrador.
Landings from the Nain Banker will supplement the
resources that Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative will access elsewhere. This
additional volume of raw material will increase the viability of Torngat's
operations, decrease the need for operating subsidies, and increase employment
incomes for employees.
Mr. Speaker, the Nain Banker is the only one of the
six middle-distance vessels still owned by the Province. As hon. members may be
aware, the Nain Banker was built as a commercial vessel but was leased on
a temporary basis to Memorial University as a research and training vessel.
Given the particular suitability of the vessel for the northern turbot fishery
and the opportunity for Labradorians to benefit from adjacent marine resources,
it has been decided to return the vessel to the commercial fishery. Government
will be working closely with Memorial to find a suitable replacement vessel.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for supplying me with a copy of this
Ministerial Statement before the House opened. We over here on this side
certainly applaud anything positive that is happening on the Labrador Coast.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: We know full well what the people,
especially in Coastal Labrador, are going through right now but, I say to the
minister, there is not a lot of difference in what every other coastal community
that relied on the fishery around Coastal Newfoundland is going through, and I
would like to see the Premier - and I ask the minister: When is the Premier
going to fly to Port Union to make an announcement on what happened in the fish
plant there that employed 1,200 people? When is he going to fly to the Northern
Peninsula, or the Southern Shore, to make announcements on the fishery? Because
I can assure you that we are going to need lots of announcements, lots of
positive things put forward, in order to maintain our rural Newfoundland
communities. The only way we are going to maintain them is to put emphasis on
the reason why we existed there, and the reason why we went there in the first
place and that is the fishery.
I call upon the minister to do whatever he can in order to
attract new industries, to get into secondary processing, to add value-added
products to the fish that we presently have being landed on our shores so we can
create employment -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - and we would welcome any new
announcements and any positive steps such as this.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair
have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Cartwright
- L'Anse-au-Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to applaud the government today for
recognizing what has been happening within the fishery and on the Coast of
Labrador. I think that a few years ago we set an example through the crab
fishery of what could be done when we practised adjacency and local control and
ownership and management of the resource. We are starting to do it today. I know
that with respect to the turbot fishery, the Grand Banker , part of the
Middle-Distance Fleet, that went up there, is the only thing that has kept the
Labrador Shrimp Company in operation. I am sure the Nain Banker will
succeed in doing the same for Torngat Fisheries and the people of the North
Coast of Labrador.
I hope that the minister will continue to be interested in
the fisheries along the coast of Labrador and practice conservation measures as
we look at the shrimp fishery and the allocations that are going to happen there
to ensure that we do not have draggers dragging the coast of Labrador in tearing
up the stocks that the crab and the turbot are flourishing in now.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize in giving this statement and for not providing a
copy to the critic, but I think they will understand why. The Premier, the
Minister of Government Services and Lands, a couple of our MHAs for Labrador
West and for Torngat were in Happy Valley - Goose Bay trying to go to the coast
of Labrador this morning to make those announcements. They are stormed in and
they asked that we make the statement in the House, so I will do it very
briefly, Mr. Speaker.
Basically, as a follow-up on the Labrador agenda with my
colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in fact one of the major
announcements that was to be made in the communities of Nain, Rigolet, and
Hopedale today involved education infrastructure and facilities. The
announcement basically, Mr. Speaker, is that in Nain because of severe
overcrowding in the school and the growth in that area that everybody
understands related to the Voisey's Bay development and otherwise, there will be
an expansion and extension to the school in Nain which will be tendered
immediately, and construction will begin this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: The architects and design personnel will
determine shortly whether or not actually the expansion can go to the existing
building. It is likely that that cannot occur because of the physical structure
and the land on which it is located. It is most likely to be a stand alone,
separate structure on another piece of land that will accommodate the primary
elementary students, and the rest of the student body will stay in the current
structure. The overall project is expected to cost $2.5 million, and the
expectation is that construction is to begin this season and through two
construction seasons. They could be in the school by September 1998 or at the
latest by January 1999.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in the community of Rigolet, which has
become well known to the people of the Province, a badly needed improvement to a
school that is in fact in very bad shape, and also an announcement that the
construction again will start in Rigolet this year of a new school.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: And in Rigolet, Mr. Speaker, an actual
replacement of the structure that will also include, for the first time in
Rigolet, the addition to the building an inclusion of a gymnasium community
recreation centre that they have never had in that community before.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: That project as well, Mr. Speaker, will begin
this year. Again, the same expectation that if they can meet the construction
targets they will enable the project of $2.5 million in that community to be
finished, hopefully for September 1998, if not, maybe for January 1999.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, clarification of the announcement in
Hopedale where there is a total project that will be just over $5 million
cooperative agreement, $4.4 million from provincial sources and the Labrador
Native Agreement and so on, kicking in the rest so that they could have a
separate native stream of education in the new replacement facility in Hopedale,
again that will be constructed this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
An announcement such as this can only be welcomed, Mr.
Speaker, by members on this side of the House. Clearly, we have communities
throughout the island portion of our Province and Labrador which require
immediate assistance and clearly the communities of Hopedale, Nain and Rigolet,
from an educational point of view, require the sorts of advances that have been
mentioned this morning by the hon. minister. I would like to pay tribute to a
member opposite, who I believe deserves it, and I am referring to the Liberal
Member of Torngat -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - who, in my view, Mr. Speaker, has
worked passionately in an attempt to facilitate the sorts of advances that have
been announced this morning by the hon. minister and I saw that first hand when
I represented our party at a meeting of the combined councils in Labrador,
approximately a month ago.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister, do
not stop now. We have a construction board whose mandate it is to see to it that
we have the appropriate facilities and expansion of schools and I say in
particular, Mr. Speaker, let's be mindful of those facilities that presently
require immediate assistance. I refer specifically to a school in the district
of Bay of Islands, the Premier's own district, where today there are some
forty-odd students who require puffers because of poor air quality in that
building.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. minister to address
this matter immediately. It is of immediate concern. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The day is gone when
government members should sit around applauding the government for meeting the
basic needs of people for education. While we welcome the building of these
schools in Nain, Hopedale, and Rigolet, which are so desperately necessary, as
has been pointed out by the Member for Torngat Mountains, it is something that
ought to have been done a long time ago. This government has been in power, this
previous Liberal government, for six or seven years now, and it is time that it
recognized this need. I congratulate the Member for Torngat Mountains for
bringing it to its senses on this issue and for achieving what has taken so long
to achieve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: No leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.
Oral Questions
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Chair has called Oral Questions.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped to ask
questions of the Premier today, but when the Trans City scandal in the courts
ruled that it was guilty he didn't show up in the House for nearly two weeks. I
hope to have him back to question him in the near future.
I will ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
In light of the report that was tabled in this House yesterday I will ask the
Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will she explain why the Cabot 500
Corporation has not been dissolved, in spite of a Cabinet directive to that
effect on November 16 1995? Could she give the House the reasons why it isn't
currently dissolved?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would be most pleased to give an
answer to the hon. member's question. The board in essence has been dissolved. I
have gone to Cabinet to explain, and there is a Minute on the record of Cabinet,
why the legal entity is still there. The legal entity is still there because of
the contracts that we have with the Matthew , because of the sponsorship
contracts, and because of the merchandising contracts. Other than that all of it
has been dissolved and government, as of November, 1995, has assumed the
management totally of the Cabot celebrations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am quite sure legal responsibility for contracts can be
transferred and accepted by both parties to other entities; that is not a
problem.
Mr. Speaker, in this report the review of the expenditures of
the John Cabot 500th Anniversary Corporation that was prepared by the Auditor
General, we witness what could be described as a complete abuse of taxpayers'
money and a complete disregard for the laws of the Province. Now, the Auditor
General has concluded that this corporation was subject to the Public Tender
Act, and the department and the corporation in question believe it was not. I
ask the minister: Does she intend to obtain a determination of which opinion is
accurate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, in regard to transferring of contracts, I would
like to tell the hon. member that could only be done at very great expense; and
that is the reason why leaving the legal entity there was of no particular
difficulty - there were legal opinions that said so - and I would assume you
would not want us to waste funds, many thousands and hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
As in regard to the review of expenditures, the review of
expenditures will be addressed very clearly in this House. At this time I would
like to table the analysis of the Auditor General of Newfoundland's report
entitled `Draft Report of the John Cabot 500th Anniversary Corporation'. This is
the report that the volunteer board, Miller Ayre and others, publicly put on the
public record and was addressed in the public all through, since February 21.
Also, the volunteer board have agreed that yes, they will
appear before - gladly appear before - the Public Accounts Committee. Also, in
regard to other issues that are referred to in this report in regard to the
possible misuse of funds, my department weeks ago, have already referred to the
Department of Justice for an assessment. This will be inquired into properly
through the Department of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister would not want to see us agree
with the waste of funds. Well, now, that is a hypocritical statement coming from
a minister whose own department lacked accountability, did not do their job, and
allowed a tremendous abuse of public funds.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister now: Does she agree it
is acceptable use of public funds to pay people's personal income tax, spousal
trips, and other personal costs that are not related to Cabot 500?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the comments that the hon. member
has just made are casting aspersions on many volunteers, volunteers who were
appointed by both the federal government, by the hon. John Crosbie, who we all
respect very much, and by the provincial government. The other items you
referred to are items I cannot comment on because they were referred weeks ago,
as soon as we received this report, the draft copy of this report, to the
Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice will be doing the inquiry
that is necessary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not care -
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon.
gentleman -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has not yet recognized the hon. member.
The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods on a
point of order.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman just used the
phrase `hypocritical' in referring to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation. I would remind him that is not permissible and he should withdraw
it, and I would ask that the Chair ask him to do so now.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review Hansard and see
exactly the context in which the hon. member had used the statement, and report
back to the House.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word
`hypocritical' if it is a problem and would save the time of making a decision
on that.
It does not matter who was appointed, who sits there. I do
not care who appointed whom or who sits there. I do not agree with the misuse of
public funds in this Province, and I ask the minister now: What have you done up
to March 14 to correct the problems in your administration which have been
documented by the Auditor General of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in regards to the comments about
the misuse of public funds, this is the third time I am standing here saying
that immediately upon receipt of this knowledge it was referred to the
Department of Justice. Also, I should acknowledge that procedural concerns and
that were taken care of when the department brought the Cabot celebrations into
the department, dissolved the Corporation, and brought the management of the
Cabot celebrations into the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on
November 1995. Government's takeover of the Corporation at that time resolved
all of the concerns related to legislation and procedures.
The former directors have reviewed the Auditor General's
draft report and they provided, as I've just provided to you, and we have all
been provided with on February 21, a detailed public response. This was made
available to the Auditor General pointing out some of her errors of omission in
this.
We should also well note here that my department's response
immediately to the Auditor General, in a very expeditious manner, was ignored in
the report. This is the first time as far as anyone can ascertain that the
Auditor General has left out the departmental response as she tabled her report
in the House of Assembly. My department by next week will reissue our detailed
response. We could give you the detailed response that we submitted to the
Auditor General, but in our first review of this yesterday evening we discovered
that some of our detailed response was in fact used by the Auditor General. Some
of it was not. Therefore we have to review the whole document line by line
before we can give our detailed response to it next week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we heard the same story on
Trans City, how government was doing things right, when the highest court in
this Province said you broke the law, and in this instance too. I ask the
minister: In view of the reckless mismanagement and the waste of millions of
dollars of public money, and the blatant abuses of public tender revealed by the
Auditor General, will the minister, this government, now do the right thing and
order a judicial inquiry into the matter to determine what laws were broken, who
is responsible, and what should be done about it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I think that actually your
question is too late. The judicial inquiry, the legal inquiry that you are
speaking of, we have already asked the Department of Justice to look into. We
have already asked, weeks ago.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for
the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The minister has stated that
the reason the government is privatising the provincial parks is to save $1.8
million. However, in the program review dated September 27 1996 it states that
nature and eco-tourists have contributed $150 million to our economy in the
previous year. Resident tourists have contributed $300 million to our economy.
It also states that the revenue that is generated to the Province as a direct or
indirect result of the provincial parks program makes the parks affordable. My
question is: Why is the minister going to privatise our provincial parks when
her own report states that because of the direct and indirect revenues the parks
are affordable?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, several of the comments that the
hon. member makes are very accurate. We will be saving $1.8 million. The hon.
member does not point out that there will be thirteen core parks left in our
system. He is also saying that as these parks are privatized or taken over by
other operators that there will be no revenues. The revenues that you refer to
will still be generated and I believe in this year much more revenue will be
brought in because of the Cabot celebrations and the thousands upon extra
thousands of visitors. These parks are not being closed. These parks are being
privatized. The revenue will still be there, and will be there, I hope, in much
greater amounts than you have just outlined to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind the minister that of the twenty-eight parks up for
privatization, only ten are still open.
In the minister's program review it states that the standards
of provincial parks are higher than that of the private sector equivalent. It
also states that many of the current private park operators are experiencing
financial difficulties. My question is: When your review states that the private
operators may not have the resources or the desire to implement the standards
that are experienced and that are commonplace in the provincial parks, why have
you suddenly decided that the private park operators are a better option?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that all
through the program review process many, many pieces of research, many - how
would I say?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS KELLY: No, I think the way I would like to put it, Mr.
Speaker, is that when we were doing the review, we received many, many opinions
- opinions from every single employee, right from the very beginning. What you
are pointing out today here is one piece out of hundreds and hundreds of pieces
of information that we reviewed. I think when you say that public parks don't
have the same standards; we could give you a very long list of private parks,
public parks, national parks that have very high standards in this Province. You
have been all over the media, all over this Province this week talking about our
fine parks. Our public parks and our private parks are, indeed, very good. We
do, as in any operation, need to have enhanced standards and these are being put
in place. The same way as with our B&Bs, we have just recently put a rating
service in place, this is being done in our parks also.
I think that many of the employees, the entrepreneurs and the
tourism associations that are making proposals about taking over our parks - you
are demonstrating very little faith in them. Already we are seeing, by the
meetings we are holding and the questions that are coming by telephone, that
very experienced, well-educated, good business partnerships are being formed
here for the takeover of these parks.
When you say that when the last privatization was done -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister to finish her answer quickly,
please.
MS KELLY: - not all were offered for privatization.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say the minister is as full of confidence now, as is her
report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is: Why has the
minister not consulted with the Mayor of Gambo when he was led to believe that
because of celebrations in that area, his park would not be in danger of
privatization until at least 1999?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I met with the town council of
Gambo this week.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To consult with the council of Gambo this week is a little
late. Mr. Speaker, the minister has insulted the people of our Province by not
consulting with them!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has insulted the
park employees by cutting their careers short without notice!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has insulted the
municipalities. I ask the minister: When are you going to do the right thing and
reverse your decision and save our parks?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this decision to save $1.8 million
by privatizing some of our parks and leaving thirteen core parks was a program
review decision, and it is based on choices, the choices between health care,
social programs, and education. We have reviewed all of the services within our
department, met our savings targets, and are very, very, confident that these
parks will be privatized using employee takeovers, tourism associations, private
entrepreneurs and some partnership arrangements between private entrepreneurs,
tourism associations and employees.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health. They
concern Sharon Broderick, a woman who has gone public through national media to
tell her story about the mutilation and the neglect she has suffered at the
hands of this Province's health care system. I have written the Minister of
Justice on two different occasions demanding an inquiry, and twice, of course,
the government have said no. Will the Minister of Health now order an inquiry to
determine what went wrong in the case, why the system failed Ms Broderick, and
why her efforts to have the system redress the wrongdoings have still gone
unnoticed and have still gone without a public inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the first part of the hon. member's question, it is, as he
would know, not within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health to direct or
order inquiries of any type, size, or description, when it comes to matters of
justice in the Province. That is an issue for the Department of Justice and for
the Minister of Justice to so deal with.
To the other broader issue regarding this case that has been
significantly aired in a public fashion, let me tell the hon. member that
immediately there was representation from Ms Broderick to the former Premier,
actually, of the day, and then down to the Minister of Justice and myself as
Minister of Health, we immediately took the appropriate steps to deal with her
concerns.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: If you would care to listen a second I will
tell you. There are two avenues of redress in situations like this. The first is
that the individual who feels aggrieved or has a complaint has a right to, and
has an avenue through the Newfoundland Medical Board to make representation with
respect to the treatment, to the services, to the activities, or otherwise, of
physicians in the Province. Ms Broderick was advised that that should be
undertaken if she wished and that venue was open to her.
There is one other avenue of redress that a person can always
take, which is litigation through the civil courts. In this particular instance,
Ms Broderick was advised of that on three separate occasions by correspondence
and on one occasion by telephone. The Newfoundland Medical Board, through the
offices of Dr. Young, contacted Ms. Broderick, advised her of her rights,
advised her that they were prepared to consider any representation she would
make, and in the final contact with the individual, the Newfoundland Medical
Board took the extraordinary step of offering secretarial services and help to
the individual if she so wished to come forward and make a formal complaint.
My latest information, as of this week, is that that type of
information has not been laid before the board so they have not been able to
act. The individual did, however, initiate action through the courts in a civil
suit and that activity is ongoing through the court system and, of course, it
would be inappropriate for me, for you, or for anybody else, to speak to that
court case inasmuch as it would be most inappropriate and unfortunate if we were
to in any way prejudicially affect what she might be putting before the courts
and the adjudication they might arrive at as a result of that representation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, everything has been done to
assist this individual from the governmental departmental level. The appropriate
channels have been laid open for the individual and the case is now before the
courts.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a
supplementary.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I really and truly do not
believe what I just heard. It is not the courts whose job it is to set the
policy for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the minister -
that is the job of the fifteen Cabinet ministers who sit opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Now, Mr. Speaker, in 1994, Ms Broderick
signed documents, I will tell the minister, seeing he talks about an inquiry,
for the Health Care Corporation, to ask the Newfoundland Medical Board to
investigate - I spoke to Ms Broderick, by the way, minister, as early as this
morning. But the Health Care Corporation did absolutely nothing, as they do do.
In view of the fact that there are now two other women, and Ms Broderick tells
me there are numerous others who are calling her almost on a daily basis, will
the minister finally do something to ensure that public health care is being
delivered as it should be to the thousands of other people who find themselves
at the mercy of the system for which he is responsible?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know what the hon. member is
getting on with this morning talking about `do-do.' To the more substantive part
of his question, the Health Care Corporation, in this particular case, has been
named in the civil action that has been initiated by Ms Broderick. And because
the Health Care Corporation has been named in the civil suit that has been put
before the courts, there are restrictions, limitations, that that brings with
it.
Simply put again, it would be most inappropriate for anyone
named in the suit or anyone otherwise, to be taking or making precipitous
decisions or actions that might prejudicially affect the case that the
individual has before the courts. The Health Care Corporation has acted
appropriately, in my judgement, the Newfoundland Medical Board has acted
appropriately, in my judgement, and the courts will render their verdict when it
comes to their final judgement on the issues and matters before them.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: I can only say, again, Mr. Speaker, that I
just do not believe that the minister runs a department that spends so much
money and knows absolutely nothing about this particular case. I have spoken to
the Broderick family on four separate occasions, with my colleague, the critic
for Justice, and I have had numerous phone calls, and believe me, Mr. Minister,
your story -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to get to his question.
MR. FRENCH: - is certainly different from hers. Does this
minister like to find out what is going on in his department by reading court
decisions or following the coverage in the media? What specifically has he done
to ensure that no other person in this Province has to endure the kind of
mutilation and neglect that Sharon Broderick has suffered?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Sharon Broderick case and the information that came
forward on The Fifth Estate is an instance, and puts forward a very
visual and graphic picture, of services that were rendered to her in the health
care system. I have to tell you that anyone who saw that incidence or is in any
way familiar with the outcome of the treatment that she had, if we were to look
at it from what we see publicly, would have great sympathy with that individual.
I have great sympathy and compassion and empathy for any individual who goes
through a health care system and who has an outcome that they are not entirely
happy with.
We have about 15,000 people every day who have interactions
with the health care system through their physicians, through their hospitals,
and it is a fact of life, most unfortunately, that of those 15,000 interactions
every day every one of them does not turn out exactly as people would like, or
as the people who are rendering services would like. But that is something that
causes us to deal with these things as they come forward.
In the matter of the Sharon Broderick case, I can assure the
hon. member that I am intimately and fully and completely and thoroughly
familiar with the file in all its aspects, in every respect of the issue. I am
as well-versed on the file and on the case as he might ever suspect anyone could
be. In the judgement of this minister, and in the judgement of this government,
we have taken every appropriate action to ensure that the individual has
knowledge of the processes that are in place to deal with her concerns, and we
have taken every appropriate action -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to complete his answer quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: - to ensure that she has access to those
avenues of redress that are there for her.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Social Services. In the
Speech from the Throne, on page 13, there is a commitment that: Savings from
Program Review - now we know where the money is going to go - and other
efficiencies will be used to fund investments in nutrition, adoption, foster
care, and family services.
Can the minister today give us more details as to the nature
of the programs that are going to be funded, how much money will be used from
the savings of program review to fund those initiatives, or is this another wish
list and another wishy-washy commitment that will result in another tick in the
report card that you plan for next year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I think it will result in another tick in the report
card when we do our second Year To Date , but I will not be giving any
details until the appropriate time. My hon. colleague knows that the Speech from
the Throne lays out the general directions of government, and the initiatives
that will be undertaken, and more detail will be given at the appropriate time,
be it in the Budget or close to that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a
supplementary.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Madam Minister, the Throne Speech as well notes, on page 15,
that the Policy Advisory Committee on the Strategic Social Plan is now in the
final stages of completing its report. Will the minister confirm, as was noted
in the press this week, that when the Throne Speech was being read on March 11,
indeed, the minister already had the report in her possession? And will she
announce today, when, where, how, and under what procedures, she will release
this report to the public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have the report in my possession. The full report
has not yet been submitted to government. I think this arm's length committee
has heard from over 1,500 participants in over 130 communities. They have
received 685 submissions, questionnaires, e-mails, letters and telephone
conversations. If I were to say, `pass it in', you would be telling me I was
interfering with the process. When that arm's length committee is finished, it
will be submitted to government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a
supplementary.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What the minister has said is that Judge Hancock, who was a
member of the committee, and party to the writing of it, does not know what she
is talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to ask another question. This is not
the first Strategic Social Plan report to be prepared. Indeed, there was another
report prepared in December of 1995. It was whipped back at the last minute,
even though it was all printed and ready to go. What assurances do we have that
the current Administration is more committed to the Strategic Social Plan report
than they were to the one prepared in December of 1995 and printed by the Wells
Administration?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As my colleague knows, I do not have to respond to some of
the previous directions not under my complete direction, but I can assure my
hon. colleague that this Province is committed; this government is committed, to
putting forward a Strategic Social Plan. As we said in our Red Book, we are
committed to doing that. We are anxious to get the report from our Social Policy
Advisory Committee. We are anxious to start the process and to put forward the
most fundamentally bold and original report that this Province has ever seen. We
are looking forward to doing that, and as soon as we get that report we will
move forward and put that down for this Province and people to see.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for
Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: One of the fundamental principles, Mr. Speaker,
on which this House operates, is the respect and civility that we show to each
other. There are rules designed to ensure that that takes place, that debate
takes place with a degree of moderation.
I refer to the question and answer between the Member for
Conception Bay South and the Minister of Health. I believe that after the answer
of one question to the Minister of Health that the Member for Conception Bay
South said that he did not believe what he just heard. We all know what that
means and I would say to hon. members that that is quite unparliamentary. I
refer to Beauchesne, page 151, clause 494, with the heading to that particular
paragraph, "Acceptance of the word of a Member. It has been formally ruled by
Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly
within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary
temperately to criticize statements made by members as being contrary to the
facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible." I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that certainly was the intent of the words given by
the Member for Conception Bay South when he said that he did not believe what he
heard. I believe if that were allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker, it could have a
serious implication for the operation of this House in the future. Mr. Speaker,
I would suggest -
AN HON. MEMBER: It's a waste of time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: Anything, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the
civility and the decorum that is supposed to take place in this House is not a
waste of time and I would suggest to you that if that were allowed to stand it
would have serious implication for this House in the future.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot believe that the member would rise in his place this
morning and waste the time of this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we come here to do the
public's business. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the member opposite
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: I want to say to the member opposite over
there, I want to say to him that - Mr. Speaker, it says on page 151, 494, "It is
not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being
contrary to the facts." That is what it says, it is not unparliamentary to
criticize members and making statements contrary to the facts. The Member for
Conception Bay South said, `I cannot accept or I cannot believe what the
minister has said is a fact.' He did not say the minister did not believe what
he was saying. He did not say the minister was deliberately communicating wrong
words to the House. He just said that he could not believe that what the
minister was saying was acceptable and consistent with the facts that have been
told by the Broderick family. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing unparliamentary
about it. It is a disagreement between members and that's it!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Do you know what is going on in your own
department, boy? Wake up boy?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is not going to tolerate this kind of exchange in
the House. I ask hon. members to come to their senses and let's get on with the
business of the House.
Order, please!
I ask the hon. Member for Conception Bay South to constrain
himself.
To that point of order, the Chair will take it under
advisement and report back to the House on Tuesday.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce the following Private Members' resolution;
WHEREAS the Province has passed a tax agreement act; and
WHEREAS as a consequence of the implementation of the
Harmonized Sales Tax on April 1 the prices of many essential goods and services
will increase, and
WHEREAS the increased tax rates on heating fuel, electricity,
children's clothing, and many other goods and services will impact most severely
on those surviving on small or fixed incomes who comprise of a major portion of
the Province's people, and
WHEREAS the chairperson of the Senate of the Canada Committee
on Banking, Trade, and Commerce, has publicly urged the participating provinces
to enact a provincial rebate system similar to that enacted by the federal
government with respect to the goods and services tax,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to enact a provincial annual income
supplement program to help compensate low and fixed income families for the
added expenses they will incur as a consequence of the implementation of the
HST.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.
The hon. Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce
the following Private Members' Resolution.
WHEREAS the people of our Province own the provincial parks
that government is now trying to privatize, and
WHEREAS the people of our Province who own these parks were
never consulted by the government about its decision to privatize these parks,
and
WHEREAS the people of our Province are expressing loudly and
clearly that they do not want their provincial parks privatized, and
WHEREAS government's rash, last minute decision to privatize
the people's parks without their prior knowledge or consent is fostering chaos
and confusion which puts at risk the Cabot Celebrations and the most important
tourism year in our history,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the
provincial government immediately to stop its efforts to privatize the people's
provincial parks.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to present another petition to the House
of Assembly regarding the provincial parks. The prayer of the petition reads: we
the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to petition the provincial
government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and the Premier to
immediately reverse the decision to privatize the provincial parks as they are
the people's resource. We feel that this decision was made in haste without the
consultation of the people of our Province, the people who own these parks, the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, there have been questions in the House today
without substantive answers, and again yesterday regarding the provincial parks.
The minister herself states that they have over 300 enquiries regarding the
privatization of provincial parks, people interested in the takeover of these
parks.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile on a point of order.
MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate, but the wording of
the petition, and I am not sure if the House resolved the issue of the wording
of petitions so that any petition could be brought forward - I do not want to be
a real stickler about it or anything, but it is a concern because I know, in my
own district, I always try to make sure that the petitions I bring forward on
behalf of constituents are worded appropriately. I think it is important that we
know that the petitions are to be worded appropriately to the standards that the
House has set for that, or are we to accept petitions other than those worded
appropriately? I just wanted to ask the Chair for the information on that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader to the
point of order.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this petition is quite in
order. It is entitled: petition to the House of Assembly and it meets all the
requirements according to standing procedures we have here. I see nothing wrong
with it and I would ask the Chair to rule on it.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not seen the petition, but the
Chair would like to have a copy of the petition to make a determination.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has become quite
evident to me -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair would like to have....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
Certainly this petition does not follow the standard and
requirements of a petition for the House of Assembly, and I would certainly rule
that this petition would not be in order.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to present
that petition?
AN HON. MEMBER: There is no reason that petition is out
of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: There is no reason for it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has ruled that the petition is not in order. The
member is asking for leave to present the petition. Does the hon. member have
leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: Leave.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe that
the members of this House would turn down a petition presented by the people.
How are the people of our Province supposed to know how to word a petition?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. OSBORNE: The people of -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Member for St. John's South to continue.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has become quite
evident in this House that the members on the opposite side agree that this is
an absurd decision. They are trying to stop petitions by the people of our
Province. They are trying to stop the people of our Province from voicing their
concern and objection to the privatisation of our provincial parks.
The people of our Province are gravely concerned over the
privatisation of provincial parks. In 1995 the government put up for
privatisation twenty-eight parks. Of those parks it had serious enquiries on
fifteen, and today, two years later, there are only ten of those parks still in
operation. That is just not acceptable. The twenty-one parks it is intending to
privatise today, and the seven cites, can we expect the same results in two
years' time?
The people of our Province have a just right to present this
petition in the House of Assembly. As I've said, the people of our Province are
not familiar with the way petitions are to be worded. If we are going to turn
down every petition that comes in here that is written -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want if I could to rise on a
point of order. I don't want to waste anybody's time when they are in the middle
of a petition to do so.
I want to note that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile was in
his right to demand that there be some semblance of order to this petition. The
Speaker ruled the petition out of order. I want members to note, please, that
there is some semblance of order that should be put to petitions. While we, not
wanting to stop the hon. gentleman from presenting this petition today, to
present the wishes of the people, wherever they were, I want him also to note
that he does know the proper orders for petitions. I suspect that everybody on
that side knows the proper orders for petitions. While we give him leave today,
I want to make it known that whenever the Speaker rules a petition out of order
in this Legislature, this side of the House will no longer give leave to the
presentation of that petition.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. Does the hon. member
want to speak to that point of order?
The hon. Government House Leader is correct in that the
petitions presented to this House should be in their proper order and that all
members should be familiar with the process and with the form that the petition
should be in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
I remind hon. members that the Chair was giving a ruling on a
point of order raised by a member, and that members should sit in their seats
and be attentive. There should be silence in this House when the Chair is trying
to rule on a point of order.
To the point of order again: Members ought to have petitions
presented to this House in the proper form, and the Chair can only grant leave
if leave is given by all members of the House. A member who comes into the House
with a petition that is not in form is running the risk of not being permitted
to have that petition presented.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for
St. John's South, and to support the prayer of the petition which seeks to have
the government of this Province reverse its decision to privatize these parks.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial park system is a system that is
designed for a particular purpose. It was paid for by the people of this
Province. It was built up over a period of years by an investment of the
taxpayers to create a system of wilderness, access points for the general
public, and particularly those people who are not wilderness campers; they
cannot go into the back woods - the back of beyond, as some people say - and
experience the wilderness of this Province. It is an opportunity for people,
particularly families, to enjoy outdoor activity in a relatively pristine
environment. I say `relatively' because obviously there is some civilization
there, and the people who go to provincial parks want to have the advantages of
a park warden. They want to have the advantages of a system where there is some
sense of security, there is someone to call on in the case of an emergency,
there is some opportunity to be able to enjoy the outdoors and, at the same
time, enjoy a measure of safety and security.
So these park systems are designed for that purpose, for the
recreational uses of the people of this Province, and there is a cost associated
with that. Let there be no mistake about it; there is a cost associated with
providing that public service to the people of this Province, and that cost
includes the cost of paying the salaries of individuals who work in those parks,
on a seasonal basis for the most part, to provide those services to the public,
and it is a public service that the people of this Province want. They want to
have this service, they want to have the opportunity to use these public parks,
and they want to have the opportunity to have them operate at a set of public
standards that are adopted and that the people have come to expect and to enjoy
over the years, and it is not something that the people of this Province want to
see taken out of public control and public hands and put into private hands. It
is as simple as that.
We have, as part of the heritage of the people of this
Province, a system of public parks, and they are part of the commitment that
each province is expected to make, to set aside certain parts of its province
where there will be no development, where people will have access to the
wilderness, to the beauty of nature, to the beauty of this Province that we are
all so proud of. That is the purpose of these parks, not to turn them into
private use, an opportunity for individuals to exercise their entrepreneurial
skills to make a few bucks. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing
wrong with private enterprise seeking to make profit and do things, but not in
this particular context. It is not an appropriate use of the Province's
resources to turn these particular parks that have been built up over the years
at public expense, into private hands.
The only figure the minister wants to talk about is the $1.8
million that she thinks will be saved - she thinks will be saved - by turning
these over to private hands. I don't think she has really figured out all the
numbers. What I am hearing from the people who work in these parks is that this
provides to a family an economic livelihood that is being taken away, and with
the way the UI system has been destroyed by their federal counterparts over
there, most of these people are not even going to be able to collect EI, and
will not be able to have a support for their family from a seasonal job such as
this. What we are going to see is these people moving away, or ending up on the
social assistance rolls in the not-too-distant future.
What is going to happen if the parks are taken over by
entrepreneurs, a family operation or an operation where there is only a handful
of people at the most employed at minimum wage jobs, part-time, that kind of
thing. That will not replace the economic benefit of the public expenditure that
is taking place right now. So we have not really got a full cost benefit
analysis of what the government is doing in the first place, not, Mr. Speaker,
that that would justify them doing it, given the fact that this is a public
investment and a public resource.
We have not heard the minister, not once, say how much public
money has gone into these parks since they have been formed. How much public -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition from constituents in my
district. Mr. Speaker, it is a `save our Mounties' petition. The prayer of it
reads: We, the concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, are proud to
have members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police providing policing services to
our communities. We demand that our government consider the impact on the
citizens of our Province of further reductions and/or elimination of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police. This issue is much too important to be decided by
government alone and we would ask that all citizens be consulted before any
decisions are made.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that prayer is in line with
what is required here in the House or not but the intent is certainly very real,
and the intent is obvious, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the petition as well.
Yesterday we saw a situation whereby the retired members of
the RCMP met with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and presented a
petition with in excess of 52,000 names attached to it. I stood here yesterday
and presented a petition with in excess of 4,000 names. Mr. Speaker, there is
certainly a lot of concern out there in Newfoundland today with some of the
statements made by the Minister of Justice prior to Christmas when he went out
and talked about his program review, looking at the possibility of doing away
with either the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the RCMP and having the
Province policed by one particular police force.
Mr. Speaker, the residents of my district are not saying that
we do not want the RNC to come and police us - that is not the intent at all -
but what they are saying is: We would like to know why we should have to lose
the present police force that has served us so well these past forty-six years.
We would like to know if government, in their review process, is looking at
cutting back or reducing the number of RCMP officers by one, by two or by
fifteen.
I am not familiar with what is happening in urban areas but
you will find that the RCMP policing effort in rural Newfoundland today is
reduced to the minimum number that was suggested by a review process conducted
by the Department of Justice some years ago, the minimum number of officers that
they feel is needed in order to police that particular area.
I know, in my district of Bonavista South, we are policed,
for the greater part, by the RCMP detachment in Bonavista. Mr. Speaker, that
particular detachment has nine members - nine RCMP members serving in excess of
14,000 residents in thirty-nine communities. We have already seen the highway
patrol effort cut to something like thirteen right across the Province of
Newfoundland. There are thirteen people now designated as highway patrol
officers. All of us, I guess, at times would like to go on the highway and do
things where we think we will not have to be bothered with the RCMP or the RNC
but I think the very presence of those two forces, either out doing their duties
or living in the area or being involved in community work has got a - just their
very presence, Mr. Speaker, is a discouragement to people who would want to be
outside of the law. People feel very protected when they see those peace
officers carrying out their duties.
What the people are asking in my particular district is no
different from what they are asking down in Placentia, where I think there was a
rally held by some concerned citizens, there was another in Harbour Grace; and
they are all saying the same thing. They are all carrying the same message. They
are saying: What we want is to be consulted. We want to be advised of what is
happening here. Maybe there are places where we can cut and save some money.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we can do things differently. We are not going to get into a
turf war between the RCMP versus the RNC, although I am convinced that is what
the minister tried to do when he flicked out the little bit of information. I
think he thought that the RNC and the RCMP would come together and get into this
big turf war and the effort would be moved away from his department. And the
police officers - then he would have to step in and make the big changes and be
the hero of the day.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: But that did not happen, nor should it
happen.
Mr. Speaker, I have other petitions and I will present them
as the days go by. Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take a few minutes -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough to -
if we could quieten or muzzle this gentleman over here until I am finished. I
will deal with him when I get up to speak later on this morning. If he thought
he got something in Question Period he has seen nothing yet.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to support this petition. I
have RCMP who police part of my district, and I am very fortunate that I also
have the RNC in my district. We have two extremely good police forces doing an
extremely good job. If there were any one criticism, unfortunately it is that we
don't have the manpower so that they can even do their job much better than it
is being provided today.
I have attended a meeting in one of the communities, attended
by well over 200 people, of a campaign that would support the RCMP in this
Province. I do not think we should be drawing police forces into discussion or
debate with each other as to who should do this, who should do that. I really
and truly believe we should have gone out and negotiated with both police
forces. I hope that at the end of the day we see both police forces remain in
this Province as they have since Confederation, providing very valuable services
to the citizens of this Province.
I have a nephew who serves in the RCMP. It took quite a
number of years after he graduated in Edmonton - he had to go to British
Columbia, got transferred several times in British Columbia. Eventually, he
moved up to the north where he finally served about four years in the north,
because they said if you go north you have an opportunity to get back to your
own province. He was fortunate about a year-and-a-half ago to get transferred
back to Newfoundland, the place that is his home, the place where he was born,
and he was only too glad to get back to avail of the hunting and the fishing and
so on in his own native Province.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, there are no cuts to the RCMP in
this Province, that it remains the same as it does today. There should be no
cuts. If anything, both forces need more manpower to do the job, to provide
protection for the people of this Province. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments
about the RCMP, because I guess, like yourself and a lot of others, we have had
extensive representations made to us as the members - not as the minister but as
the Member for the District of Carbonear - Harbour Grace. We have one of the
biggest rural detachments, I suppose, in Harbour Grace right now, one of the
biggest in the Province. In fact, I think it is bigger than Gander at the
present time.
I can honestly say to you that over the years I have known
most of the RCMP officers in Harbour Grace and the Carbonear area. They have
provided -
MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) the reason why you have a big
detachment out there is because so many people who live there are criminals?
MR. A. REID: After I got elected in 1989, the force went
from eleven to nineteen.
MR. FITZGERALD: Is it a reflection of some of the people
we see here? (Inaudible). Is that the reason, Minister?
MR. A. REID: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and I think I am
saying this on your behalf as well, because I know that you have been lobbied as
the member next door to me, and I know my hon. colleague for Port de Grave has
been lobbied as well. We have a detachment in Bay Roberts.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have to honestly say that the
RCMP in my area of the Province, the Conception Bay North and the Trinity South
area have provided a valuable service since the early 50s, I guess, when the
force came there first and picked up a number of rangers that were in the area.
Next door to me, by the way, in Carbonear, in my residence in Carbonear, lived a
retired superintendent of the RCMP, Mr. Nelson Forward who passed away just last
year. I also support the RNC even thought I have had one speeding ticket in the
last five years. One of my friends from the RNC happened to nap me coming across
Nagle's Hill one night. I was driving a little too fast and I got a ticket, but
I will not hold that against the RNC.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. A. REID: I will say, Mr. Speaker, that when the
government dealt with the question of the RNC and the RCMP we did it on the
basis of what would be the best service we could provide with the money that was
available to us at this particular point in time. I am not in any position to
say whether the RCMP will stay or go, but I will say to you that I hope, because
the force has served me well, and the residents of my district well, I hope they
are around for a long time to come.
They are a symbol of Canadianism, I suppose, one of the few
symbols that we have left in the Province, and I do support the RCMP in rural
Newfoundland, but I also support the RNC because, I think, there are more people
from Carbonear and Harbour Grace in the RNC, certainly more in the RNC than
there is in the RCMP, so there is a lot of support coming from this side of the
House as it relates to both forces. I am in no position to say that one force is
better than the other. I am living in St. John's most of the time during
weekdays and my force, the RNC, is doing a commendable job in St. John's, so I
have to offer them the same amount of gratitude and praise as I offer the RCMP.
Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking in favour or against the
petition. What I am saying is basically, I hope and I think, there are a lot of
people in the district of Carbonear - Harbour Grace who hope there will be,
after the Budgetary process is announced, there will be a presence of the RCMP,
at least for some time to come, in the Conception Bay - Trinity Bay area.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition that is directed to the hon.
House of Assembly of the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Could the hon. member just take his seat for one minute?
I thought the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi was
rising to speak to the petition that was presented by the hon. Member for
Bonavista.
MR. TULK: He was the third speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay. I thought he was the second speaker.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: I rise to present a petition to the House of
Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition
of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador petition the Province
to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch
program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger
and to give our children a better chance.
These petitioners have identified two issues, two important
issues in the area of child poverty in this Province, the need for some
government action that is going to help children learn better and have a better
chance of overcoming the difficulties they face in this Province and in the
world. The second thing they have identified, Mr. Speaker, is the need for a
universal program for each and every school in the Province, and not a program
that can only happen if there is already a social infrastructure, if there is
already a club or a volunteer organization, or a charity base that is going to
do this. They have identified the need for a government sponsored program that
is universal and comprehensive.
Mr. Speaker, the need has been identified clearly, from an
educational perspective by Dr. Patricia Canning in her report which was released
last fall. It has also become very evident that in this Province the needs of
children and the needs of poor people is a very serious matter that is, in fact,
getting worse and not better. These are the unfortunate and sad realities for
people in this Province and we can no longer, and government can no longer,
pretend that the picture is rosy, as they did in the Throne Speech. You cannot
tell hungry children to wait for a better tomorrow. Hungry children need food
today. They cannot wait for a better tomorrow. They will not be working at
Voisey's Bay. They will not be building smelters in Argentia. They will be going
to school tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, for many years to come. Their
needs need to be addressed now.
This is a very small program, a small step, a small part of
to, to end child hunger and child poverty by the year 2000. This is a very small
part of that, but a very necessary part and one that is within the capacity of
this government to do this year.
Mr. Speaker, we, as a Province, are saving something in the
order of $40 million to $50 million in our education system as a result of
changes in the school busing system, the consolidation of schools, and the
reduction of teachers, because of the decline in enrolment. That kind of money
is substantial. They are real dollars that are available for the Province to
spend in other ways. What better way to make a start on both ending child hunger
and building an opportunity for students to learn better in school than to have
a school lunch program that is available to every child in the Province, in
every school in the Province, regardless of their income, regardless of their
ability to pay. That is what these petitioners call for, Mr. Speaker, and that
is what I support and support fully.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to support the petition put forward by my
colleague to the right, and say that this petition again is reflecting the
concerns of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about their children.
Mr. Speaker, we know there are serious problems in
Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to children. We know that some children
will never have an opportunity to finish high school. We need programs that are
aimed at intervening at an early age. We need programs that are designed to
address the needs of children before they ever enter the school system. We need
to show support for family resource centres. We need to let parents know that
they are not alone, that we understand their situations. The issue of child
hunger is a blight upon all of us.
Mr. Speaker, as we said in the House before, the situation as
it relates to children is getting worse. One sad reflection on Canada, on
Newfoundland and Labrador, is when we have to say that we have more children in
poverty than we had ten years ago. Nearly one-third of the children of
Newfoundland and Labrador live in families on social assistance. In other words,
every day in the classrooms of this Province we have teachers who face children
who cannot concentrate because they have not had anything to eat, and I commend
some very worthwhile programs.
I visited a school in Port au Port last year, where every
child was offered a breakfast program. Research will show that breakfast is the
most important meal of the day for children. I visited schools in the St. John's
area where they have a School Lunch Program. I have been down to St. Joseph's
School where they prepare the school lunches. The sad reality is and the sad
commentary is that these things are necessary.
Mr. Speaker, some members of this House will recall in the
1930s when the Commission of Government found it necessary to have a universal
program of food supplements put to every school in this Province. I, as a young
student who started school in 1949, I remember getting my hand out of cocoa
malt. So therefore I go back to that. In this Province today the sad reflection
is that we have children who go to school who would welcome the cocoa malt
supplement that was given to them in the '30s and '40s. So what has
Confederation done for them? What has modern technology done for them? When will
they be able to share in the wealth of our Province? When will they be able to
say I have a free and full opportunity? When will we hear the voices of the
hungry children? So what my hon. colleague's petition is about is trying to make
sure that every child in every part of this Province from Labrador to Cape St.
Mary's, from Cape Bonavista to Port aux Basques, every child has an equal
opportunity to go to school, an equal opportunity for early intervention and an
equal opportunity to get an education.
Just this morning on CBC we heard a commentary about Zone 19,
the economic zone. What were the people saying? They were saying that with our
high rate of adult illiteracy we cannot compete. If we don't address the issue
of child poverty we will merely -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - perpetuate the things as they are today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased to speak on the petition that was brought
forward today and just to share some information with my hon. colleagues, that
on National Child Day this year the Province implemented a $125,000 initiative
for the provincial nutrition fund which as we know, has been matched by $200,000
from Petro-Canada to make the point that the issue of child poverty is bigger
than an issue relevant to government only. It is an issue that has to involve
the government, the community and the private sector. The issue of child poverty
is a bigger issue than what any one government can do.
I think it is also very important to note that some of my
colleague's governments across the country have done some very serious things
that would damage the whole issue of supporting children. The three month
residency rule in B.C. which prevented the social services residents, the
poorest of the poor from having access to services, surely, that is not the view
of a kind compassionate government.
Then you have the other governments across the country, Mr.
Speaker. Here we are with a National Child Benefit where every government in
this country has supported it. Ralph Klein from the PCs, Mike Harris supported
it; Premier Binns has come out and supported it as a positive initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, and in addition to that we
have the colleague's own governments, Glen Clark and Roy Romanow from Western
Canada, participating and supporting the social services ministers right across
the country and saying this is the way to go, Mr. Speaker. We are acknowledging
that we have money but here, Mr. Speaker, in our Province, with $12 million new
money, I have the colleagues across the House saying: Oh, you are clawing back.
You are not going to use this money. I say, Mr. Speaker, they are talking about
the very programs and services that we, on this side of the House, are trying to
implement, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I ask them, Mr. Speaker, to wake up,
rise above their political partisanship and recognize that this is a good
program, a chance to meet the needs to help children who are living in poverty
and going to school in poverty. Give it a chance to work, and for once,
acknowledge a positive step.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1, first reading of a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act."
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act," carried.
(Bill No. 3)
On motion, Bill No. 3 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply, Order No. 2.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of
the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!
Resolution
"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for
the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service
for the financial year ending March 31, 1998, the sum of $1,019,465,700."
CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to take the time allotted me this morning to
again go back to health care issues. I mentioned this morning in Question Period
the case of Sharon Broderick. I certainly said that I had difficulty in
believing what I heard. I still say that and I maintain it. I believe the
Minister of Health kind of indicated that I had no respect for the Chair. Let me
assure the Chair that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Chair. I
wish I could say the same in the House for the job that the Minister of Health
is doing. Unfortunately, I cannot.
I have had the opportunity to meet with Sharon Broderick and
members of the Broderick family on four separate occasions and I have seen what
this lady has gone through with health care in this Province. The health care
system in this Province has failed and failed miserably. It has certainly failed
Sharon Broderick, and has certainly failed her family, her children, her
grandchildren, and those others who wish to support her. I would like to
certainly add my name as one of the people who wishes to and certainly does
support the initiative of this very courageous and fine lady.
I remember one day at the last session, sitting in the House
when the Minister of Health said that he and the Minister of Social Services
were joined at the hip. I believe the Minister of Social Services jumped up and
moved back to her own seat. I would like to say to the Minister of Social
Services, because I know of her work in the nursing profession before she got
into this profession, that I would certainly urge her - because she knows about
the health care of this Province, she knows of the problems that were in it, and
I can only imagine that she must know today how much they have multiplied.
I am going to get into some of this in the very limited time
I have this morning. I am going to tell you a story about a phone call I
received two Saturdays ago. The Minister of Health thinks everything is rosy in
the health care system in this Province. Of course, he is living in a dream
world.
I got a phone call last Saturday morning - not last Saturday,
the Saturday before - at home, from a lady whose husband was in hospital and who
had had an operation for a tumour on the brain. On Saturday morning the lady
went in to visit her husband. The husband was lying in the bed, covered in urine
from the top of his head to the tips of his toes. And the Minister of Health has
the gall to stand in this House and tell us that everything is fine in health
care; everything is great in health care? People are sitting in waiting rooms
for up to nine-and-a-half hours to be admitted. In the case of that man, the
lady who phoned my house, her husband - when somebody can sit here and say that
there is nothing wrong with health care in this Province; it is a disgrace, an
absolute and utter disgrace.
The minister should be ashamed of himself to know that these
things are going on. I brought it to his attention last fall about food that was
being served at the building, and it was a big joke that we would serve food
that was not fit to eat. It was a big joke to the minister. Some joke if he had
to eat it, I have to tell you that. Some joke when you go to the Health Sciences
Centre to visit and the people who are going around to take the various
information from the patients in the hospital look at you and say: Make sure you
bring food. Make sure you bring food to the institution.
I do not know if the minister is aware of that or not, but I
am. I have had it said to me; bring food so that the people can eat some decent
food. Just imagine, that is health care in this Province, and he has the gall to
sit in this House -
MR. MATTHEWS: Give me one name.
MR. FRENCH: I will not give you the names of my sources,
absolutely not. You get your own sources. You go and find out.
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Is that right? Well, yesterday afternoon, my
friend, when my wife was admitted to the Health Sciences Centre, the person who
was in her room told me that when I visited my wife I had better bring food
because what was in there was not fit to eat! And it is too bad that you were
not there, because maybe you should have eaten it. Maybe you should wake up!
Stay in Newfoundland! Do not go to Florida five or six times a year! Go in, boy,
and see what is going on. See what is happening to the people of this Province!
I am upset over this! I am upset because a man, this Tuesday,
got the top of his left finger cut off and waited nine-and-a-half hours at the
Health Sciences Centre for medical attention. Do you believe that? Can you
comprehend that happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is a great
system we have? We allow the health care system in this Province to do that? We
allow that to go on in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is great? I do not
think it is great.
The lady who called me at home last night - and I will give
you that lady's name if you want it, and I will give you her phone number.
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I certainly will. I will send you over a
letter this afternoon with that lady's name, her husband's name - the gentleman
who lost his finger. I will give you her name and what she called me on last
night at my home at about 10:45, to tell me -
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I will certainly see that you get that lady's
name and you can certainly give this lady a call and she will tell you what she
told me last night.
Mr. Chairman, that is health care in this Province, and I
think it is time that we really got into health care in this Province. People
are lining up now on stretchers at the Health Sciences Centre waiting to be
seen.
The gentleman who lost his finger told his wife, when she
arrived at the Health Sciences Centre, that he must have walked twenty miles
because the man was in such pain. I can only imagine the pain that he must have
been in, to sit and wait for nine-and-a-half hours. That, to me, is a disgrace.
The call I had from the lady in the Premier's district,
concerning her husband who has Alzheimer's disease - the call I had from that
lady, and what the department now wanted her to live on, what they wanted her to
do with her husband's cheques, who they wanted to sign them over to, and what
they would now allow this lady to live on, is an absolute disgrace.
There are many of these incidents. Some, Mr. Chairman, I will
certainly get to in Question Period as we go on into this session of the House
of Assembly. I will certainly get into a lot of these questions, and I will
certainly point out many more incidents of neglect, of what is going on. I will
point out to the minister things that are going on in the health care system of
this Province. He talks about saving money. I will talk to him about saving
money. I will talk to him about the letter I received from the pharmacists of
this Province. I will talk to him about the Kirby report concerning the
home-owners in this Province, and the meagre amount of money these people are
being paid for the service, care and attention that they give to the poorest of
the poor people in this Province.
Hopefully, in this session of the House, I will have the
opportunity to present those facts and to ask questions of the minister, to
point out exactly where we are, where we are going. And, hopefully, this
minister will take action to correct these wrongs that are now going on in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are still waiting, of course, for the
report from the Burin Peninsula.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Chairman? Just to wrap up?
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. FRENCH: I would hope that we would soon receive the
report on the Burin Peninsula health care board. We have waited for it since
last fall. The minister has a copy of it. Maybe he intends to keep it. Maybe it
will never be released. But it must be some report, because it was given out and
it was taken back by the members of the health care board. They were not even
allowed to have the copy to take it home. It was given out in a meeting, and
they went to the people when the meeting was over and took it back. To my
knowledge, I have never seen a copy and it has never been released. I think it
is time that the people of this Province had that opportunity.
Anyway, I thank you for these few minutes this morning. As I
get on I will certainly have more questions and more concerns about health care
in this Province. Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise to participate in the debate because it gives me an
opportunity to not only comment upon some things with respect to health care,
but also to address very directly some of the comments made by the hon. the
Member for Conception Bay South, the Health critic from the Opposition, and to
make some observations as to some of the points he made.
I want to say at the outset in my comments that I have no
difficulty - as a matter of fact, I commend not only the hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South, the health critic, but I commend any member in this House
who takes the time and has the initiative to bring forward to me, to government,
any instance where he or she feels health care has been either inappropriate,
inappropriately rendered, or has been not available on a timely basis, or any
other concern that he or she has regarding health care. So I have no difficulty
with - as a matter of fact, I look forward to the hon. members, the critic in
particular, raising issues of genuine concern with respect to the health care
system in this Province, or to treatment that people receive.
It is also, of course, incumbent upon the member to bring
forward information that is factual, that is accurate, that can be
substantiated, that can be validated, that is transparent in terms of being able
to take it up and look at it and see what validity there is in it, and to act in
an otherwise honourable, responsible and respectful manner.
When we deal with health care, when we talk about people
getting treated in the system, every person who goes to see a doctor or needs
health care is an individual. Every individual in this Province deserves the
utmost respect, deserves the utmost in courtesy, deserves the highest level of
competent care that we can deliver to them. If there is one instance in the
15,000 interactions a day where that does not occur, then we have a
responsibility as government, and we take that responsibility very seriously, to
address the issues that are raised.
But there is balance and there is fairness that has to be put
forward. The hon. member rises in the House and he refers to some things that
may be factual in terms of what he was told or what he has seen in the health
care system and I have no difficulty with hearing that.
I hear other things as well, Mr. Speaker, from people who go
through the health care system. I had a very good friend of mine about three
weeks ago, who lives in my area, and one night came down with a serious - what
turned out to be a gallstones attack. He was rushed off to the emergency
department. After a day or two he happened to be chatting with me and one of the
first things he told me was the way in which he was treated at the Health
Sciences - in this particular case he went to - and the absolute first class
service that he obtained in terms of health care when he went through the
system. As a matter of fact, the gentleman was very gratuitous in his comments
with respect to the way that he was treated at the emergency department at the
health care.
Now I only share this with you because it is something that
came to my attention. If I were to indicate who the individual was I would say
to my hon. friend from Waterford Valley that he happens to have admitted to me
once that in a weaker moment of his life, he even worked for the hon. member in
a campaign and voted for him. So while that may, in one sense, cast some
question as to whether or not he had all his smarts, on balance, my judgement is
that he does have all his smarts and he is a very fine fellow and a good friend
of mine.
I was walking through the corridor here the other day and I
met an individual just outside the door here, whom if I identified by any
greater expansion you might even know who he was. I think it was last Thursday
he -
AN HON. MEMBER: Gordon Seabright.
MR. MATTHEWS: I will admit that it was not Gordon
Seabright. It was not Gordon Seabright but it was a man that -
AN HON. MEMBER: Judge Wicks, that is who it was.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, it wasn't Judge Wicks, keep on going.
It was a man that everybody in this Legislature -
MR. H. HODDER: Your brother campaigned for me.
AN HON. MEMBER: You mean your brother had a gallstone
attack?
MR. MATTHEWS: No, he's fine.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) if he campaigned for you it
wasn't physical. It wasn't a physical problem he had if he campaigned for you.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if my brother campaigned for
you I will have to undertake to speak - I can't speak to him about it because
obviously he is beyond the point of no return but I will speak to my mother
because she has the greater influence in our household. I will urge her, at age
78, to go back to the drawing board and deal with my brother because my brother
needs help. My brother needs health care. My brother needs help. He needs help
in a desperate fashion. I have no idea, Harvey, why he would, in a weaker moment
of his life, have succumb to, have descended to, why he would have otherwise
lost and taken leave of his senses and done that hon. thing of working for a
politician, otherwise honourable.
AN HON. MEMBER: Your mother only had one wayward son.
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Speaker, my mother has four sons,
the elder of which is now sharing his thoughts with you. Those who came behind
me probably are not as bright, probably the colour -
AN HON. MEMBER: Lloyd, did your mother have any children
that lived?
MR. MATTHEWS: My mother had seven children that lived and
seven children that still live, all politically active; most of them bearing the
colour that the hon. member from the Straits of Belle Isle wears, the very
bright colour red. One of them I think -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Anyhow I digress, and my time is running
out but I did meet an individual, Mr. Speaker, the other day out here in the
corridor. A person that is very well respected by people on the other side of
this House I can assure you. I said, `How are things going? Good, haven't seen
you for a while.' He said, `I have to tell you something.' I said, `What's
that?' He said, `My mother, a couple of days ago, took a heart attack and he
said being a mother and being frugal and all that, she would not even call an
ambulance to go to hospital. She called a taxi and got herself down there
without letting the family know. After two or three days of being there, because
of the illness that she had, he said I went to visit her. He said, `Do you know
what she said to me?' I said, `No, what did she say?' He said, `I have to share
it with you, she said to me that when I get out of here I'm going to do
something I never done in my life before.'
What is that? She said, I am going to call the Open Line
show and tell them about the marvellous treatment that I received here at this
facility in terms of health care. I share with you only what the gentleman
shared with me. She said I have been treated wonderfully. I have been treated
well. I have been attended to. I am on a course of treatment that will get me
back on my feet and I think it is appropriate, she said, that the people of this
Province hear some of the good things that are happening in the health care
system. Now, that does not take away from the fact that there might be somebody
who did not get treated well, but I believe it is incumbent upon the members in
the Opposition, as well as everybody else, to at least be fair and balanced in
presenting what it is they hear and what it is they see with respect to the
health care system.
I have information on my desk, a number of series of polls
that have been done over the past two years, and consistently in this Province
the people of the Province rate our health care system as satisfactory or better
on an average of about 70 per cent when polls are taken. I would have to say to
the people who sit on the opposite side that for the most part the people in
this Province are getting adequate -
AN HON. MEMBER: There are 25 per cent who are unhappy.
MR. MATTHEWS: That is the bad news, there may be 25 or 30
per cent who are unhappy, and while 70 or 75 per cent may be satisfactorily
impressed with, and have been dealt with fairly in their minds of the health
care system, we have a responsibility to every person in the Province to ensure
that there is, if possible, to attain 100 per cent satisfaction with the health
care they receive in this Province.
The hon. members allude to, and talk about, what we are not
doing as a Province. If the hon. member would pick up The Evening Telegram
today, that he probably has not seen yet, you will see an
article there
outlining one of the most positive initiatives that have been undertaken in
years in my judgement, and in the judgement of the doctors of this Province,
with respect to the retention issue. They talk about the bonuses that are being
paid out this month as a result of an initiative that, if I might be so modest
to say so, that I put forward myself. It was one of the first initiatives that I
undertook when I became Minister of Health to my colleagues in Cabinet, and they
accepted it. It has been implemented, and it has been successful to a large
degree in dealing with the retention of doctors in the Province's bonusing
system.
Now, it is not the end of the world, it is not the cure by a
long stretch to the difficulties we have with rural doctors, but I point out,
Mr. Speaker, to the hon. members of the House, that this government has taken
action. This government has taken action that has been received positively. This
government has taken action that receives commentary from the President, Dr.
Cohen, of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, when he says it's a
good start.
The point I want to stress and make is it is important to be
fair and balanced in acknowledging what good there is about our health care
system, to acknowledge what positive things are happening in the health care
system, as well as bringing forward the issues that are not of such a positive
nature. I can assure the hon. members on the other side of the House, and the
people of this Province, that this government is a government that will continue
to put forward initiatives that will deal with rural physician problems, and
that will deal with problems of programming in our hospitals.
I admit that we are operating a health care system that has
very little flexibility left it. A lot of the efficiencies that restructuring
was meant to bring about have occurred, but we are taking advantage of those
efficiencies. We are living within a flat line budget in the health care system
and that creates its own challenges for the system to respond in a way where it
can continue to deliver quality services while at the same time maximizing the
value of the dollar we spend in health care.
I do want to assure the members of the House, and I do want
to assure the people of this Province that our health care system is in the
hands of a government that cares, it is in the hands of a government that
understands the issues, it is in the hands of a government that is responsive to
every individual need and circumstance that is brought forward that might not be
representing 100 per cent quality health care, and is in the hands of a
government that will continue to maximize every dollar that we have for health
care in terms of its expenditure, and will continue to put every dollar that we
can find into health care. In terms of what we spend on health care in this
Province.
In terms of what we spend in health care in this Province, we
are number one as a province in terms of the effort we put into delivering
health care as compared to our capacity to do so, vis--vis our GDP and those
sorts of measurements. We are spending about 33 per cent of every discretionary
dollar that we have as a government on health care in this Province. After
allowing for pensions and debt charges we have about -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. minister's time is up.
MR. MATTHEWS: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as I say, of
the $2.6 billion or $2.7 billion we have left to spend discretionarily in the
Province, we spend a full 33 per cent to 35 per cent of that on health care. And
I believe the hon. member, in presenting what he brings forward as concerns
regarding health care, has a responsibility also to recognize some of the good
things that are happening, some of the quality services that we provide, and
above all, in conclusion, I would say in acknowledging the dedicated, the
committed and the compassionate services that the health care workers of this
Province deliver on a day-to-day basis.
No person who works for the public purse in this Province
gives us better value for money spent than people who work in health care. They
have worked cooperatively with the boards in the restructuring of the health
care system. They have done so on an ongoing basis in a manner that helps us get
the job done, and I would pay tribute to the health care workers and to the
people who represent them by virtue of their unions and that sort of thing for
their cooperation and for their input, and for the service that they render to
the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am only going to take a couple of minutes here cause there
is certainly lots to discuss in health care as we go on with this session of the
House.
Might I tell the minister that the things I raised were not
because of health care workers in this Province. I suggest to the minister that
some day when he has an extra hour or so, maybe he should visit some of these
institutions and talk to some of the workers, and if the workers are telling him
what they are telling me... The workers in this Province, especially in health
care, are providing a great service and I have no criticism of the health care
workers in this Province. The problem we have in this Province is that there are
not enough of them to do the work that is expected of them to do. There are not
enough of them.
The lady who called me about her husband who had the
operation for the tumour on the brain did not fault the staff but, let me tell
you, found a great deal of fault with the system and the fact that there were
not enough people to provide the adequate care to this particular gentleman. She
had no problem with the people delivering the care. There just were not enough
of them to make sure that the care was delivered, and delivered in the proper
manner.
Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no problem with the health
care workers in this Province. I have a great deal of difficulty with the
Department of Health and the way that it is administered, and the number of
people we are losing day in, day out, who should be hired and should be
administering health care in the Province.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: It is not the point of hearing it; the
point is, are you going to listen? You will find that if you listen sometime you
might be a lot better off, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture;
you might learn something. It is not hearing something, it is listening; and you
have not done that yet so I hardly expect you to do it this morning.
AN HON. MEMBER: Don't let him sidetrack you.
MR. FITZGERALD: I won't get sidetracked by the minister.
I have already told the minister where he should be. I told the minister, with
his thoughts and ideas that he should be in the archives out in Carbonear, so
people could go and see him and visit him there. That is where he should be.
To revisit health care - it seems that is the topic that is
being talked about here this morning - the minister is fully aware of what the
member is talking about, and he certainly is very sincere when he puts forward
his concerns and his suggestions, and the things he is hearing out there. I can
talk about things here this morning that would frighten you, and the minister
knows what I could say, but I won't say it here in the House because I know what
is happening and I know the process that has taken place.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the Member for Conception Bay South
that I find the deputy minister a lot easier to deal with than the minister.
Maybe you are going to the wrong fellow. You should see the deputy minister. He
is much, much more conciliatory, easier to deal with.
AN HON. MEMBER: You have to be nice to the minister; you
might need his help some day.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I may so and I will come looking,
and I am sure that the minister hopefully will help me if he can. You will not
be helping me, I say to the minister; you will be helping the people in
Newfoundland. That is what he was elected to do and that is why he serves in
Cabinet.
Mr. Chairman, it was only a couple of days ago - I don't know
if the minister heard the interview that was done with a Dr. Mills who was one
time at Clarenville and moved outside of the Clarenville area and went to the
United States to practice. It was on I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday evening
on radio. They carried an extensive interview with her and she talked about the
frustrations.
AN HON. MEMBER: What was her first name?
MR. FITZGERALD: Dr. Cindy Mills.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Dr. Cindy (inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I knew her, yes. Talked about the
frustrations she faced here in Newfoundland in dealing with the health care
system and in trying to get her patients to continue their medical treatment by
receiving tests and re-examinations. That was what caused her to move, even
though her heart is still back in Clarenville and she enjoyed living here in
Newfoundland. She was forced, because of her professional approach to the
problems, out of Newfoundland to go south of the border. She didn't want to be
there but she had no other choice.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: That is a good question, and that is what
we have to start looking at. Because what the minister is proposing, whereby he
offers a disincentive for people to practice in urban areas rather than offering
an incentive for people to go to rural areas, is not the situation. That isn't
solving the problem, I say to the minister. We are facing -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) doctors in St. John's?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, no.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) oversupply (inaudible)?
MR. FITZGERALD: We want doctors in rural Newfoundland.
Offering a disincentive for doctors in urban areas rather than an incentive for
doctors in rural areas is not the answer to the problem, I say to the minister.
I went to the admission emergency department a year ago with
my wife, I say to the Member for Conception Bay South. The doctor suggested I
take her to the emergency ward. He said: I will send up an ambulance. I said:
No, that is alright, I think she can get aboard the car. I will take her in my
car and carry her over to the Health Sciences Centre. Put her aboard the care,
carried her over, went into the emergency ward, Mr. Chairman, and she was
waiting there, sitting up in a chair, for three hours. Finally I said to her:
Come on, that is enough of this, let's go home again. I was there for three
hours as well. While I was there -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: She had a horse, I say to the member. She
used to keep horses, I say to the minister. Mr. Chairman, while I was there I
chatted with some other people who were at the emergency ward. One lady there
from Clarenville was there for six hours at that particular time waiting to see
a doctor, sitting in the emergency ward. Sent to the emergency ward by her
doctor who obviously thought that she had a problem and it should be looked
after somewhere else that had the facilities and had the equipment to look after
her. Another lady was there with a cut on her leg about that long. Somebody had
come out, the admitting nurse or the lady who was looking after the emergency
duties there, and suggested that she elevate her leg. She was sitting in that
hospital emergency room eight hours up until that time and still hadn't seen a
doctor. The reason that she was given is that: There's not much point in having
a doctor look at you, we will check with you from time to time, because we don't
have a bed to put you in.
That is disgraceful, I say to the minister. It shouldn't be
allowed to happen here in the twentieth century in Newfoundland today. When we
look at the money that has been wasted, and we look at the things that the
Auditor General brought forward there the other day - $290,000. Over a quarter
of a million dollars spent on television advertising and pamphlets that were
never used. The gentleman who was sitting in the seat there today is part of the
responsibility of having some of those people put in those positions whereby
taxpayers dollars were wasted, unaccounted for. People put in place to operate
arm's length from government, spending millions of dollars of taxpayers money,
and we weren't allowed to ask questions? Disgraceful!
I remember trying to get the mandate of the Cabot 500
Corporation. I remember asking questions here of the minister at the time, and
all I was asking was if I could receive a copy of the printed mandate of the
Cabot 500 Corporation. That is all I was asking - a document paid for by the
taxpayers of this Province. No way, you are not allowed to have it. It was a
secret document, I say, but I did get it after I raised it enough and asked
questions enough.
AN HON. MEMBER: Were you the Roger Fitzgerald that I
heard had half a chicken?
MR. FITZGERALD: You heard what?
AN HON. MEMBER: Eating, eating, eating money, eating
chicken out of money (inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: You do not make sense.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: You do not make sense in what you are
saying. You are in your usual place again now, shouting and hollering, but you
do not make sense.
AN HON. MEMBER: I heard you were -
MR. FITZGERALD: Where was this?
AN HON. MEMBER: I heard you were -
MR. FITZGERALD: Where?
MS J. M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, absolutely; I support the people in
Bonavista who are volunteers, and that was my argument. That was my argument. My
argument was: Why should the volunteers be getting slapped on the wrist by
people in St. John's who were appointed in high places and paid $50,000 and
$60,000 a year when those were the people who should be given direction. That
was my argument exactly, I say to the Minister of Social Services.
Then I went to a Newfoundland Telephone dinner one night down
in Port Blandford. It had nothing to do with the Cabot 500 Corporation. The
Member for Trinity North nods his head; he knows what I am talking about. It had
nothing to do with the Cabot 500 Corporation, but because I was asking
questions, because I was asking: What is happening here? and saying: This is
wrong. This has to be stopped... The Chairman of the Cabot 500 Corporation
happened to be there as well. He saw me come in through the door and he
immediately walked towards me and threatened me that night out in Port
Blandford. His words were: Roger, if you do not get on side, if you do not stop
being negative, I will expose you in Bonavista.
I said: What in the so-and-so are you talking about? Get out
of my face. Get out of my way and do not speak to me anymore here tonight.
How silly, how foolish! Here was a professional person who
was supposed to go out and put Newfoundland in front of the world for 1997.
Today we see the results. We see the reason why we should be asking questions.
We see what was happening there, when you give people a blank cheque of
taxpayers' dollars and allow them to go out and spend it at will - $290,000. I
can think of a lot of things that I could do in my district that would help a
lot of people if I had $290,000 that I was allowed to spend.
That is only one item. There are lots there, where people
were paying for the expenses of their wives to go to Florida, paying their own
personal income taxes, even though it was reimbursed.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: How much? I have no idea. There were no
names mentioned. But whoever spent the money, I say to the hon. member, it was
wrong. It should not have been. The Cabot 500 Committee should never have been
set up in that way in the beginning. And the minister, having the gall to come
out then and try to support them and say, `But, you know, they did some good
things.' I guess they did, after spending $5 million or $6 million. They should
have done a few good things.
This is what happens when you allow people to spend like
fools, spend taxpayers' dollars. They do not put any value on it. Then we have
the minister standing up here today trying to justify the cutbacks in health
care. We certainly have our priorities fooled up, and I think it is time we
stood back, sat back, and refocused on what we are doing here.
Mr. Chairman, when you look at some of the cutbacks in social
services - and this is what hurts me, when you get a call from somebody who is
on social services - and they are there not by choice; they are there because
they have no other choice, for the most part. They are there because there is
not a job for them to go to. You hear them saying, `I only got ten weeks work
last year; I only got fifteen weeks work. I need twenty-six in order to qualify
for unemployment insurance.' While they were working they paid income tax. Now,
at this time of the year, Mr. Chairman, if they have overpaid then they are
entitled to a refund. When they get a couple of hundred dollars - $300, $200 or
whatever it might be - back, to see the heavy hand of the Minister of Social
Services - because of policies implemented by the people on the opposite side -
reach out and claw that from the meagre amounts that they are getting now in
order to support their families, Mr. Chairman, that is disgraceful. That is
disgraceful, I say to members opposite. All the people I know on social services
need those few extra dollars in order to pay a bill.
A lady called me last year - everybody knows the time of year
that we are into now. It is the time of year, Mr. Chairman, when people are
getting ready for their graduation ceremonies. The moms and dads are proud of
their son or daughter who is now graduating from high school.
CHAIR (Mr. J. Walsh): Order, please!
The hon. member's time has elapsed.
MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just a minute to
clue up.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, and the call came in where
this lady was getting back $250 - $300, I forget the exact amount but it was
somewhere in that range. She was a single parent on social assistance. Her son
was graduating. She had gone out and taken that $250 to buy a suit for her son.
She was going to buy him a new suit and a shirt and tie. Two days after she had
brought the suit, the shirt and the tie, to allow him to go out and appear with
his classmates that he went to school with for thirteen years, Mr. Chairman, she
had received notification that the Department of Social Services was going to
take back that amount of money from her pay cheque. Do you know what she had to
do? She had to carry back that suit, carry back that tie and deny her son the
opportunity of going to a graduation to celebrate with his friends. Now, who
over there on that side would support that? Who over there would support it?
Speak up, because you did, I say to Cabinet ministers opposite and I have not
heard one other member stand and say it is wrong. So if that is right, if you
are going to allow -
CHAIR: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: If you are going to allow that kind of
thing to happen and disgrace our people in the rural areas today, Mr. Chairman,
that is nothing but disgraceful, and it is a disgrace to all of us. It is
unkind. It is a shame. It should never be allowed to happen. Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will, just start off like everybody else, I guess, and have
a few words to say about health, because I want to make it clear to the Minister
of Health - who is not in the Chamber right now, Mr. Chairman.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is there, look.
MR. SHELLEY: Oh, he is hiding. There he is - he is here.
Mr. Chairman, to be quite frank and sincere about it, all of
us in the House would applaud the workers at hospitals. We do hear a lot of good
stories about workers and nurses and so on who do a tremendous job. I have had
family of my own who have been to a hospital and been treated very well. I am
sure everybody here has and we can all give a good story on it. But, at the same
time, Mr. Chairman, we can also give examples on the other side of the coin.
For example, just last week I was at the hospital in Baie
Verte and went in for my regular visit. Mr. Chairman, the nursing assistant
there was going to three beds serving lunch to elderly people in the chronic
care unit, from bed to bed to bed with a mouthful of food at a time that she was
feeding each patient. I stood there and watched her for a few minutes. Then, she
finally turned around and said, `This should not be.' That is what she had to
do. At the same time, I went out and spoke to another nurse, Mr. Chairman, in
the hallway, who said that because there was an emergency at the hospital the
other night, it was 12:30 before they got all their patients to bed because it
takes two people to move these people and get them ready for bed and so on. It
was 12:30 and they had to have a person in the hallway help them put these
people to bed.
So, Mr. Chairman, we can go on with these stories and on and
on. We all can. Yes, the workers do the jobs that they can do with the resources
they have but the point is, Mr. Chairman, when there is an abnormal day, when
there is an extra emergency, when things happen in the run of a day, who knows
what, that is when the health care system should be able to respond. The point
we are making is that under normal circumstances or under an average day the
workers are there trying their hardest and most of the time - I do not even know
if it is most of the time, but a lot of the time they can handle it, although
they are stretched to the limit. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, and I say to the
minister, is when you have these emergencies, when you have these situations
that arise with health care that people should expect the service, the service
that their tax dollars pay for. The service that the biggest chunk of our taxes
goes for is the health care system. The first thing you have to do is
acknowledge the problem. You can never fix any problem unless, number one, you
acknowledge it. That is what we are saying, although the good news stories keep
coming out, and I can name twenty of those, and then I can give twenty on the
other side, so what I am saying is that the point has to be that the health care
system has to be able to maintain the same level of service when the normal
situations do not arise and we get into emergencies and different situations
that arise at hospitals on any given day.
That is the point, and I think that is the point the Member
for Conception Bay was trying to make, that the health care system is not
adequate. If we keep hiding our heads in the sand and saying it is, and bragging
about it, then it is not right. In order for the government of the day, the
people who make the decisions, the Minister of Health, to work on the problem he
has to acknowledge it so that is the first step, Mr. Chairman. I commend the
workers in the hospitals, from the nursing assistants to the jani