Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 22 November 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 36)
2001-11-22
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 22, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 36
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: I wish to inform members of this House that the Marble
Mountain Event Management Group has been awarded the 2002 Canadian National
Senior Freestyle Ski Championships.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: This event will take place at Marble Mountain on March 21-24
and is expected to attract more than 600 out-of-Province skiers, coaches and
staff.
The Marble Mountain Event Management Group is a group of young volunteers,
headed by Mr. Sean Dolter, who have organized for the sole purpose of attracting
national and international freestyle ski events to Marble Mountain.
In March of this year, the group hosted the Canadian National Junior
Championships to much critical acclaim and have applied to the International Ski
Federation to host the 2003 World Junior Championships.
Mr. Speaker, the awarding of these events to Marble Mountain speaks volumes
about the highly motivated volunteers that we have in the Humber Valley-Bay of
Islands region.
In the not-too-distant future, I feel confident that Marble Mountain will
become a regular stop on the World Cup Freestyle Tour, just as Corner Brook has
become a regular stop on the World Triathlon Tour.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Sean Dolter
and the entire Marble Mountain Event Management team on attracting these
prestigious events to Marble Mountain and, through the medium of television,
showcasing our Province to millions of people around the world.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize the Town of Conception Bay South as being one of
the top three Canadian communities out of ninety surveyed by the RBC, Royal Bank
of Canada, Canada Post and Home Business Report for home-based businesses that
positively impact our economy.
What makes Conception Bay South so friendly to home-based businesses is that
one of their major economic development policies is keeping young people at home
by providing job opportunities. The town has developed a pioneer program to
encourage people under thirty to start a business, called the Business Tax
Incentive for Youth Entrepreneurs. The program gives the youth a five-year
business tax break as long as their enterprise does not compete with existing
businesses within the town. In addition, the town waives various fees for young
entrepreneurs.
I would like to congratulate the Town of Conception Bay South on having the
vision to see that our young people have a future.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating the Town of Conception Bay South on taking on this very, very
worthwhile initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the first few lines of a story told in verse,
relating to one of the most devastating natural disasters to ever hit
Newfoundland shores, that I can remember from childhood, began, "On the
eighteenth of November, A day we'll all remember, When everybody thought the
world was coming to an end."
This week, Mr. Speaker, we commemorate the seventy-second anniversary of that
devastating event.
Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1929, at 5:02 p.m., an earthquake underwater off
the South Coast, registering 7.2 on the Richter scale, caused a massive tidal
wave that engulfed many communities along the coast and resulted in the loss of
twenty-eight lives, most of them drowned by the force of the tidal wave. It
remains, Mr. Speaker, the highest death toll attributed to an earthquake in
Canadian history.
The tidal wave also caused a million dollars damage as boats, wharves and
homes were swept up and smashed to smithereens, causing irrevocable damage to
the livelihood of the people in our area.
Mr. Speaker, as the years have passed, many of the survivors of that fierce
wave have passed away, but the story of this tragedy continues to hold a
significant place in the history of the Burin Peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to take a moment today to reflect for the
victims and their descendants on this seventy-second anniversary week of a
tragedy that will remain ever vigilant in the minds of many residents of the
Burin Peninsula and the South Coast.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take the opportunity today to say congratulation to a few
people in my district who have reached a major milestone in their lives, their
50 th wedding anniversaries.
The first couple is Lawrence and Lena Barry of St. Bride's, who celebrated
their 50 th wedding anniversary on October 8 of this year; Patrick and
Bride Coffey of Placentia, who celebrated their 50 th wedding
anniversary on October 31 of this year; my own parents, Walter and Julia Manning
of St. Bride's, who celebrated their 50 th wedding anniversary on
October 27; and John and Eleanor McGrath of Branch, St. Mary's Bay, who, on
December 2, will celebrate their 55 th wedding anniversary.
Mr. Speaker, I know all of these people very well, and they have lived
exemplary lives in our communities. I pay much tribute to them today. They have
raised large families and all enjoy good health.
I ask the House to join with me in sending them congratulations and many more
years of happiness and health.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Twelve young entrepreneurs from around the Province were in Carbonear
recently to receive Young Ventures Program Awards. The award recipients were:
Maria Pike, operator of Maria's Artwork of Brigus, receiving the Newfoundland
and Labrador Arts Council High Artistic Achievement Award; David Ball of David's
Digital Imaging, receiving the High Achievement in Technology award, sponsored
by Newfoundland Power; Justin Keats and Mike Counche of St. Anthony Odd Job
Squad received the High Achievement in Customer Service award sponsored by
Fishery Products International; Adam and Amanda Larkin and Matthew Simms of
Glacier Ice, also from St. Anthony, received the High Achievement in Financial
Management Award sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada; Chelsea Howard of Dorset
Spirit Stones, Baie Verte, received the High Achievement in Culture and Tourism
sponsored by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador; Micheal O'Brien of Mike's
Seafood in Happy Valley-Goose Bay received the High Achievement in Marketing
Award sponsored by NewCap Broadcasting; Jonathan Jesseau of Jesseau's Summer
Watch, also of Happy Valley- Goose Bay, received the Venture of the Year Award
sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Business Development
Centres; and Robert Reid and Amber Cuff of Functional Fashions -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SWEENEY: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SWEENEY: Robert Reid and Amber Cuff of Functional Fashions, Bishop's
Falls, received the High Achievement in Innovation Award sponsored by Long
Island Seafoods.
Mr. Speaker, starting with three students in St. Anthony in 1992, the Youth
Ventures Program has grown to include more than 300 young people around the
Province this summer. This year, the program was offered at twenty-one sites
around the Province, offering young people between twelve and twenty-nine
hands-on business experience, ranging from Web page design to singing telegrams.
I would ask Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in
congratulating these young entrepreneurs and also recognizing the sponsors for
these awards and the various funding partners for this very important program.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I want to give recognition to the Friends and Lobbyists of the
Waterford River, an environmental action group located in my district and
dedicated to a river that spans the District of St. John's South, as well as
running through a number of other provincial districts. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it
runs from the Town of Paradise, through the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St.
John's and into St. John's Harbour.
FLOW have made outstanding achievements throughout their years despite the
fact they have been working with a limited budget.
This group of volunteers have initiated an annual cleanup of the Waterford
River. They have significantly reduced the amount of pollution into the river
including raw sewage, and have successfully reintroduced salmon to the Waterford
River as well as improved the flora and fauna of the watershed area.
FLOW are also to be commended for bringing an awareness of the importance of
the Waterford River and the watershed system to the region, as well as educating
the general public about the need for environmental protection of the river.
While FLOW have made many accomplishments, there is still much to be done
with the Waterford River, including reducing the remaining outflow that
continues to pump sewage into the river.
I would like for all Members of the House to recognize the important work
that FLOW have done and continue to do, given the restraints of their financial
budget.
Also, I would like to congratulate FLOW for their persistence and their
positive impact that they have had on my district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before I call Statements by Ministers, I would like to
welcome to the gallery today, a former Member of the House of Assembly for the
District of Port de Grave, John Efford.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, as I have stated before, is extremely
concerned about the current state of affairs of the finances in the Province.
The Opposition is concerned, as well as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
about twelve years of Liberal mismanagement. The people simply want the truth.
In light of our deteriorating financial situation, would the Premier tell the
people of our Province, will there be any more cuts to health care services or
additional layoffs beyond what has already been announced?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition are really
concerned about the Auditor General's Report. In answering the question, since
it is all based on the Auditor General's concerns, maybe if the Leader of the
Opposition will not read it into the record, Mr. Speaker, I will read into the
record what the Auditor General has said. The Auditor General has said, in
filing a report on November 20, 2000: In my opinion these consolidated
summary
financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of the Province as at March 31, 2000 and the results of its operations
and changes in its financial position for the year ended in accordance with the
accounting policies disclosed.
Mr. Speaker, there was a reference to the word concern. It did say: I am
still concerned that government continues to report a cash surplus and as its
surplus or deficit can easily be adjusted to produce whatever financial result
the government desires. It also says, Mr. Speaker - and let the words speak for
themselves - government can easily decrease its cash surplus by increasing
expenditures through special warrants. It did not say that we had done it. It
did not say she was concerned about it. It said it is possible to do. Not that
this government had done it, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the Auditor General
had said.
The Auditor General also said: I have two concerns with respect to
accountability. The present initiatives for government departments, Crown
agencies, and Memorial University are not legislated with respect to the
initiatives for Crown agencies and Memorial University. They are not mandatory
in that they are at the discretion of the minister responsible. Those are the
concerns, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in here about mismanagement -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - or inappropriate use or accounting for the funds that
the government has spent.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the health care issues; the Minister of Health
and Community Services has given a full update to this House two days ago with
respect to the consultations and discussions that are ongoing with the health
care boards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, I said the people are concerned as well.
Perhaps you are not concerned about the people, but we are concerned about the
people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: I will ask you again: In light of the deteriorating
financial situation, will there be any cuts in services or will there be any
more layoffs? Yes or no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that the Official Opposition unveiled it's plan, if it were to
be the government today, which would include layoffs. I do understand that, Mr.
Speaker. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can say whether that is true or not,
because not only is the finance critic for the Opposition on the public record
as saying there is $100 million wasted in health care - I read it to him from
Hansard last year. It is in Hansard and I will produce it again, Mr. Speaker, if
I have to. So here is the Official Opposition with its finance critic saying:
There is $100 million wasted in health care.
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a point of order. Now, the hon. member should realize
that points of order ought to be raised at the end of Question Period, and
unless it is of an urgent matter the Chair is not prepared to hear it.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a misstatement made by the
Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I think the hon. member knows the rules of the House, that he ought to wait
until the end of Question Period if there is a point of order to be raised.
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand, just as when we debated this point in the Legislature last
year, that the finance critic will get up and say he didn't say that. I
produced the verbatim record of this House and I will do it again, Mr. Speaker.
Today, he is saying there is an over-expenditure of $20 million in the direct
departments of government. Now, if the Opposition is saying, we will not spent
$100 million wastefully in health, and if we would reduce expenditures in
government departments by $20 million, then clearly, if they were the
government, every single public servant and every person working in health care
should be shaking in their boots, because they wouldn't know if they have a
job tomorrow or not.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Our plan, Mr. Speaker, has been announced by the Minister
of Finance, it is laid out for the public, and we are proud of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This Premier slipped into that chair on the basis of straight answers and
real solutions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Give me a straight answer, Premier? Yes or no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for a question. I heard a
comment about slipping into a chair, and yes or no.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the pattern continues all week, no answers to
the questions. I will repeat this one question for the fourth time. Would the
Premier confirm to the people -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I want to remind hon. members about the rules for oral Question
Period. One, supplementary questions ought to require no
preambles. We have
allowed some
preambles to members to allow them to clarify questions, but
clearly, a supplementary should not require
preambles and certainly no question
should require a long
preamble. Secondly, questions ought not to be repeated.
That is clearly in Beauchesne and other parliamentary authorities. I ask
hon. members to keep these rules in mind.
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my second question. Yesterday, the Minister of
Finance said that we are looking at each job to decide whether they are
essential to the functioning of government. Would the Premier confirm for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador that many long-term, contractual and/or
temporary, government employees may lose their jobs?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will confirm this: The plan laid out by the Minister of Finance indicated
that we would restrict travel to critical, necessary and urgent travel instead
of just good travel that is normally done, and should be done. We would limit
and restrict any discretionary spending for the rest of the year to control our
deficit, and we would impose a hiring freeze, not lay anybody off, but if
anybody leaves the public service, we would ask people to review whether or not
they come back. If anybody leaves, Mr. Speaker, not that anybody is fired or
terminated by the government, but if anybody leaves. That is what we have laid
out as the plan, not massive layoffs.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular role, both of our roles are
roles of leadership and I do give the answers to the questions to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and in this Legislature. Unlike the Leader of the
Opposition who, in April, said: I do not want to just be there and be a dummy
leader, I want to be on the floor and be active. The chance to be in the House
is very important to me, he said just a week ago.
Yesterday, what he indicated (inaudible) Voisey's Bay, he would not speak.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: He sat on his hands and refused to participate in a
debate about what he said was the number one issue.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, The Telegram reported today that there
is not enough money to spend on employment insurance eligible projects. Again,
this is a direct result of Liberal fiscal mismanagement and imprudence. Without
sufficient insurable earnings, how does the Premier expect to help the thousands
of people in rural Newfoundland survive this winter?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This winter we have announced that we are going to do an intervention
throughout the Province, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development, the Deputy Premier, has been working with MHAs to put in place, to
make sure that people who, for no circumstance caused by themselves, or no
related circumstances they could control, might not get enough hours to qualify
for EI. I understand that your members are participating actively with the
Deputy Premier to try to make sure that we help as many people as we can.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is an intervention that we hope we do not have to
do year after year after year, because we would like to do things like get a
really good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to Voisey's Bay,
which the Leader of the Opposition would not talk about yesterday. But he did
stand up, because you say more sometimes with where you stand than what you say,
and he did stand up at the end of the day and vote four-square against research
and development funding being used in Newfoundland and Labrador -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - to possibly develop a Voisey's Bay deal so we will
not have to do short-term intervention next year and the year after and the year
after.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier -
PREMIER GRIMES: He was so anxious to get here yesterday that he could not
find -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to take his seat.
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will the $2 million be
sufficient?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, because not only the people here in the
Legislature but the people of the Province are watching and want to know the
issues, and what we are talking about, let's make sure it is clear that it is
unanimous in this Legislature - unanimous - that the Opposition parties and the
government members all agree that there should be an intervention. I understand
- and they are nodding, Mr. Speaker, so they agree with the action taken by this
government. That is about the fifth or sixth time this week, by the way, in just
four days, that they have gotten up and said: Whatever this minister is doing,
whatever that minister is doing, is the right thing to do, because that is how
we govern, Mr. Speaker. It is the right thing to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if we can get some support instead of some
politically-motivated opposition with respect to issues like properly developing
the Voisey's Bay project, we might not be talking about $2 million being
enough, or any number. We might not even need the program in two years or three
years or four years. Now we have the perfect example again of a government group
being criticized by the Opposition, saying: You are fiscally mismanaging; we
think you should have a tax cut. But here is a case where they want us to spend
more money; take in less, spend more. Every single day it repeats itself in this
Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer my question. He is
obviously less concerned about more money for the people in rural Newfoundland
than he is about getting $100 million for his buddies at Inco.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the combined deficit over the next two
years in fact exceeds $500 million, which the Minister of Finance has
acknowledged is likely, would the Premier not agree that such an occurrence will
have a very negative effect on our ability to access financial markets, and on
our borrowing costs?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The concern that we have, obviously, for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador who did not get enough EI eligible hours to qualify is clearly evident
in the fact that we are putting in place an intervention with some $2 million
that has been found from savings, to help as many people as we can with those $2
million.
We do understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition which wants us to go ahead
with a tax cut, which means that in the short term - even the wizard of finance
who is the critic will acknowledge - in short term you take in less money, at
least on day one. He did say that was right, Mr. Speaker. Because the people on
television cannot see him, he did say that is right. You take in less money, but
again he is saying: Let's spend some more.
We would like to spend more than $2 million, but we cannot get it right now
because we are trying to be fiscally prudent.
Mr. Speaker, anybody would know that if there is a deficit of a billion
dollars - why don't you say that the next time you stand up? - that it would
clearly impede and impair the borrowing power and the fiscal capability of the
government. We do not intend to have a billion dollar deficit, any more than we
intend to have a $500 million deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I have invited the Leader of the Opposition and everybody else,
as has the Minister of Finance -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - to come back in March and we will lay out the plans for
next year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The minister said in her
financial statement on November 20, that GDP growth for Newfoundland and
Labrador is predicted to be 4.5 per cent for 2002.
I want to ask the minister: When were these assessments made? Was it before
or after the International Monetary Fund downgraded Canada's economic growth
for next year from 2.7 per cent to 0.8 per cent?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the member opposite would take
about this three-pronged approach or three-legged stool which I think has no
legs at all, quite frankly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as we know, the markets, particularly the
economic raters, are the ones, as well as our Province, that indicate our GDP
growth. Our GDP growth for this year, as you know, is predicted to be less than
what we anticipated and next year it is at 4.5 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister does not know whether her predictions and estimate is before or
after the IMF. No wonder we have trouble in our economy today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said in her statement that growth in 2002 will
be concentrated in the oil industry. The economic review suggests that oil
production will increase by 7 million barrels next year; that is a 10 per cent
increase.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am at my question now, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the fact that oil prices are falling and there is no sign yet of
a recovery, I want to ask the minister, what price for oil has the minister used
in her projections and how did she arrive at that number?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think what is most important when you talk about GDP growth is certainly
the current events on what is happening. Everybody knows that this is subject to
change and nobody out there, including myself, will say that we are judged, and
our GDP is largely judged on our oil revenues. That is clear, Mr. Speaker. That
is in black and white in all of our economic forecasts. That is not the issue.
Mr. Speaker, what I will do for the House is table the exact numbers because
they have done predictions based on $10, $20, $30, and I would be extremely
pleased and honoured to table it in the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did not ask what it was at each price. I asked what price did you factor
into your figures for that deficit there. The minister has refused to say it or
she does not know the answer.
I would like to ask the minister - the minister has indicated that nearly
one-half of growth in GDP this year is due to consumer spending. Next year, she
said, it is going to be concentrated in oil. Does that mean that the minister
expects a sharp decline in consumer spending and consumer confidence next year?
She cannot have it both ways.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would go to no lengths
to hear me say the sky is falling. I refuse to say it. The sky is not falling.
In fact, we are expecting incremental growth, not decline. I know that bothers
you immensely. What I would like to hear, Mr. Speaker, is more about his
three-legged stool, where he is going to cut the deficit by borrowing. We are
borrowing to address the deficit. He is talking voodoo economics with his tax
cuts. That is what I would like to hear about, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe he could share for us: If over 50 per
cent of our budget is spent on health and education, is he telling me that he is
going to cut jobs out of health and education? Because, where do you get your
money if you want to reduce the services in health and education? I think, Mr.
Speaker, this should be served notice to the people of the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that Tory times are tough times and you can hear it
from his plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to conclude her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would happy to.
Do you know something, Mr. Speaker, there is one good thing about this. At
least we have finally smoked them out on one of their policies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has stated,
in this House and in the media, that twenty-six people within his department are
going to be laid off because the Roads for Rails agreement is coming to an end.
Then he says that they may be kept on if we don't have any snow, and in the
next breath he says that they will be actually hiring people.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tell us
why he is so confused on this issue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I regret that the hon. member is really disappointed that
the news is not so bad, because I think he is really, really disappointed.
As you are well aware, in this department a lot of our functions are very
seasonal operations. As a matter of fact, in this department we hire people and
lay them off on a seasonal basis. In this case here, if you have checked the ads
in the newspapers recently, we are not only laying people off because they have
finished their work in the construction but we are hiring people in the snow
clearing area. So we are also hiring people.
I want the hon. member to know that we out there hiring people and not laying
them off. If that is confusing, I don't know how to explain it any better for
the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as late as this past August this minister had
not requested federal funding for roads, and as recently as today confirmed that
no proposal has been put forward to Ottawa for a roads agreement.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister now admit and confirm that because of
government's lack of foresight, mismanagement and poor planning, government
employees and the people of this Province will be doing the suffering and paying
the price?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. BARRETT: I think the hon. member is confused. I just indicated to the
hon. member that we are not in the layoff mode, we are in the hiring mode. As he
is well aware, there are continuous negotiations going on with the federal
government in terms of transportation. I don't know where he is getting the
information that this Province made no representation whatsoever to the federal
government for a roads program. As a matter of fact, all the provincial
ministers of transportation are making continuous representation to the federal
government for the federal government to come on board with a roads program. So
I don't know why he is confused.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, final
supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now admit that we
will see larger and deeper potholes and that road construction and road
maintenance, Mr. Speaker, will be the victim of this government's poor
planning and increasingly higher deficit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. BARRETT: This minister is proud to report that this year this
government invested $120 million in road construction.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: One hundred and twenty million dollars was invested in road
construction in this Province; $120 million. I feel sorry for the hon. member
that when he was driving around the Province this year and seen all those signs
with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. Percy Barrett
on them, I regret if they were red and caused sight problems for him. There was
so much construction on the go in this Province this year in road work, I was
afraid to drive on our highways.
This government is committed to road construction, road improvement and I am
very sad that the hon. member is confused. If he wants to go out into his own
district, he will see that we made major changes in an intersection out there
that the hon. member got up and asked for last year in this House of Assembly.
This hon. member went out there, had a look at it and said: yes, we need
improvements. We made improvements in his own district. Are you confused?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Are you confused about the (inaudible)?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Next
week the provincial, territorial, and federal ministers responsible for housing
are meeting in Quebec City. I expect the minister will be joining them.
As of September, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation's wait
list for people looking for housing in the Avalon region alone covers four
hundred and twenty families, a quarter of which are single or single parent
families.
I want to ask the minister what commitment from his government will he bring
to this meeting in Quebec City and what assurances can he give to the people
across the Province who are in desperate need of affordable housing that there
will be some progress made, and that there will be programs in affordable
housing in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is a good question from the member opposite. Earlier this year, when the
ministers met in Quebec City, we met with the national minister, Minister
Gagliano, and the provinces. The Atlantic provinces and the territories were
seeking some changes from him whereby we would be able to repair some of our
existing stock along with building new units in some of the areas, like in the
urban areas here in St. John's.
Over the next week or so, when we go back to Quebec City, it is my
understanding that the minister and the people from Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation have considered a number of the requests that have been put forward
by myself and my Atlantic colleagues, and some of the other western provinces to
allow us to do that. If we do that, then we will have a good program. I am very,
very optimistic that will happen. I am prepared, from our government, to put up
our share of the dollars because we believe in the low income rental housing and
we believe not only for that, but those who are physically impaired as well. We
believe, over the next couple of years, that we can probably spend up to $30
million of new money - federal and ours - to be able to take care of a problem
that we know exists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given the federal government's retreat from affordable housing programs in
the last number of years, on this day of national housing strategy day of
action, I want to ask the minister what his government has done to pressure the
federal government to increase funding to adequately accommodate those in dire
need of housing all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say to the member opposite, not only have we pressured the federal
government in doing some things, but the provincial government, under
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, has taken a major initiative on the Northern
Labrador coast where we spent about $7 million of our own provincial dollars in
Nain, Rigolet and Makkovik to deal with a very serious problem that they have
there. It has always been our initiative to go to the federal government. And
you are correct, they should never have gotten out of the housing market in the
first place. I think through all of the ministers and all the territorial
leaders, they have been able to impress upon the federal minister his need to
get back in it again. I am very glad to say that they are, but there is not
enough money. We will be pressuring him to make sure that we get additional
money to do the things that we need, not only in this Province but right across
the whole country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
There is time for one quick question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have time for one quick question. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the
government sold Marystown Shipyard for $1 and gave about $2.5 million more to go
with it. In the advent following that it is also clear that they did not collect
the penalties on it. Now, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development
has been involved in a series of high-level negotiations to sell Marystown
Shipyard.
My question for him is this: Can he confirm that while Friede Goldman picked
up the shipyard for a buck, that they are now in the business of selling it for
a price between $15 million and $20 million? Can he confirm that that is the
price Friede Goldman are now asking for the yard that they bought for $1, Mr.
Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TULK: Well, that is what you call a socko.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, I say to the hon. gentleman, that he
knows and we know that we are in the process of trying to make sure that
Marystown - we have told the people of Marystown that the assets not moving. We
have told Friede Goldman that they are not moving. We have told this Legislature
that they are not moving. We have told everybody that they will be kept there
for the benefit -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: Let me get to the question.
They have told us that they will be left there for the benefit of the people
of Marystown. He knows and I know, and everybody in this House knows, that we
are in the process of carrying on negotiations, hopefully, to see that that
shipyard becomes very viable and provides work for the people of Marystown. He
knows, just as well as I do, that you do not discuss negotiations in public but
he wants to grandstand in front of the camera so that he can get his picture on
television, and I welcome the opportunity to see him do it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to
Section 28.2(2) of the
Provincial -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to
Section 28.2(2) of the
Provincial Court Act, 1991, to lay before the legislative assembly the report
and recommendations of the 2001 Newfoundland Provincial Court Judges Salaries
and Benefits Tribunal. This report is dated September 14, 2001.
I would like to provide some background on the process in place for
determining compensation for provincial court judges, Mr. Speaker. The
Provincial Court Act requires that a salary and benefits tribunal be appointed
every four years to make recommendations to the Minister of Justice on the
salary and benefits of judges. The minister is then required to table that
report in the House of Assembly within fifteen days of receiving it or, in any
case, within fifteen days of the opening of the House. The House of Assembly is
then required to consider the report within thirty days of its being tabled or,
in any event, before the House closes.
Mr. Speaker, this process is set in accordance with constitutional principles
established by the Supreme Court of Canada, and based on the principle of
judicial independence, which is really the foundation of our democratic system
of government. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that any changes to, or
freezes in judicial remuneration require prior recourse to a special process
which is independent, effective, and objective for determining judicial
remuneration. This is required to avoid the possibility of, or the appearance
of, political interference with judicial independence through economic
manipulation and thereby, ensures public confidence in the administration of
justice.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the tribunal members for their
hard work over many weeks and months in reviewing the work of the court, and
hearing and considering important submissions from judges, government, and other
interested parties.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to give notice of the following private member's motion:
WHEREAS in recent years, child poverty rates have declined in all provinces
except Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS over the past twenty years, our neighboring province, Prince Edward
Island, has been able to reduce its child poverty rate from 22.7 per cent to
12.5 per cent; and
WHEREAS in those same years, the child poverty rate in Newfoundland and
Labrador has increased from 21.6 per cent to 25.3 per cent; and
WHEREAS current longitudinal studies that follow families over time indicate
that poverty affects a greater number of children than may have been thought by
looking exclusively at the yearly child poverty rates; and
WHEREAS single-parent families have extremely high poverty rates; and
WHEREAS the 2001 Report of the National Council of Welfare shows, in
considerable detail, the impact of poverty on family lifestyles and
expectations; and
WHEREAS the link between socio-economic status and educational achievement
has been demonstrated by numerous studies; and
WHEREAS the Williams Royal Commission and the Canning Report made many
recommendations for positive actions to reduce child poverty rates in
Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS the recent research shows that in some parts of our Province as many
as 40 per cent of food bank recipients are children; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not demonstrated a
strong commitment to the reduction of child poverty in our Province; and
WHEREAS the National Council of Welfare strongly recommends that greater
emphasis be placed on comprehensive policies that support parents and children
where low-income and poverty issues compromise reasonable lifestyle
expectations;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House call on the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to adopt social and economic strategies that will
reduce child poverty in this Province to national levels or below by the year
2005; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House ask the government to present a
comprehensive child poverty-reduction strategy, with sufficient budgetary
commitments to achieve acceptable targets, in the March 2002 Provincial Budget.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The. hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of a bill -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: We have not completed the routine business of the day.
MR. LUSH: I thought we were into Notices of Motion, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We are dealing with Notices of Motion; that is the point at which we were.
MR. LUSH: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I present again today another petition that arrived at my office
this morning. I will read the prayer of the petition:
We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of
Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea
Heights area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with
disabilities, and their families, need to be able to utilize the support of
family and friends within the community of Shea Heights.
If persons are forced to live in units outside the community, it compromises
the help and support families so vitally need. We are asking that serious
consideration be given to the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the
Shea Heights area so families with physical disabilities may avail of essential
support networks.
Mr. Speaker, I fully support this petition, as I have every time I have
presented petitions such as this. The need for wheelchair accessible housing
units is very high, not only in the Shea Heights area but throughout the
Province. The need for wheelchair accessible housing units in Shea Heights is
vital, because families who have grown up in that community, who have their
family, relatives, friends, and who have lived in that community all their
lives, wish to stay in the community. It is almost criminal to demand that they
move away from the community that they have lived in all their lives, that their
family and friends live in, because there are no housing units accessible to
them in that community.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking the minister again today to give serious
consideration to the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea
Heights area, and as well throughout the entire Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:
WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since
it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and
WHEREAS this
section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that
vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving schools in the area,
and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy
Cove to Bonavista;
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I stood here many times in this House presenting a similar
petition for this same
section of road. This government has made three attempts
now to go to Bonavista - between Bonavista and Birchy Cove - three attempts to
pave five kilometres of road. Today I am standing here, after three attempts,
asking that four of those five kilometres of road continue to be paved.
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that this, the main highway leading from
approximately fifteen communities that use Bonavista to commute to and from
work, to and from the hospital, to and from government offices, have to drive
over a
section of road in such a deplorable condition. It is the main highway
serving those communities.
Last year, I took the minister down there. The minister went down and
announced his program for the year and he said: Roger, go ahead and tell your
constituents that we are going to be upgrading and paving that
section of
roadway because it needs to be done - only to find out, from another phone call
a couple of days later: I am sorry that we cannot do it because of the cost of
pavement.
At that time I said to the minister: Now, Minister, do not use my argument
that I have been using to you, that I have been saying for the past number of
seasons. We have an asphalt plant in that particular area now, and now is the
prime time to complete that
section of road. Do not go using my argument saying,
because there is no asphalt plant there now, we cannot pave that
section of road
because of the cost of transportation of asphalt from a
section of the road up
on Route 230.
Mr. Speaker, this is a roadway where the people in the area have gone out and
been responsible. They have stood by the side of the road and said: Look, we are
not going to close this roadway down, even though it is of grave concern to us.
What we are going to do is, we are going to hand out papers. We are going to
hand out leaflets to the motoring public to let them know what we have to do in
order to bring this concern to government.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just a minute to clue up?
They did not close the roadway down; they did not block traffic.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member has asked for leave. Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 7, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of a bill,
An Act To Provide The
Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy, Bill 49, in the
name of the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And
Protection Of Privacy," carried. (Bill 49)
On motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion11, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 57,
An Act
To Amend The Historic Resources Act, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce
a bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act," carried. (Bill
57)
On motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are into the adjourned debate of
Order 9, the bill that is commonly known as the Class Actions Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 34, second reading.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to join in this debate for a few minutes this afternoon in
continuation of second reading of what is a relatively important piece of
legislation for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, namely class action
legislation.
I enjoyed listening to members on both sides of this Legislature as debate
began a couple of days ago with respect to second reading of this particular
bill. Much has been said about how this bill has, in fact, come about; and why
it is, today, that we are now debating in second reading this important piece of
legislation.
Much has been said, and so it should have been said, that much of the credit
goes to the Hiland Consumers Association and, of course, a gentleman by the name
of Mr. Bill Kelly. A group of people, spearheaded by Mr. Kelly, was instrumental
in ensuring that this particular class action legislation came forward, and it
is largely as a result of their efforts and their hard work that this was done.
I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Kelly briefly and, of course, he is
most pleased to know that this legislation is before the House. Incidentally,
Mr. Kelly is in hospital and I think this is an appropriate time for all
members, on both sides of the Legislature, to wish Mr. Kelly well during this
particular time. I am sure it is indeed a special moment for him that, at this
particular time, this particular bill is being debated.
I remember several months ago, in fact it was the last sitting of the
Legislature, when this side of the House brought forward a petition. It was a
petition, amongst other things, that certainly in our view contributed to this
legislation coming forward. It was a petition that was spearheaded by the Hiland
Consumers Association. I would just like to refer to it very briefly. In
anticipation of such
an act coming forward, or in the hope that such
an act was
coming forward, the wording of the petition stated as follows: that such
legislation already in place in other parts of Canada - incidentally, there are
three other provincial jurisdictions that presently enjoy class action
legislation; namely: British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
The petition read:
WHEREAS this legislation, already in place in other parts
of Canada, would permit individual citizens to ban together as a group and to
take their collective grievances to be adjudicated in a court of law...
The petition continued to state:
WHEREAS class action proceedings contain a
"no cost" or minimum cost clause which enables ordinary citizens to
initiate court action without facing the prospect of tens of thousands of
dollars in legal costs, thereby putting them on a "more or less" equal
footing with large corporations, government agencies and other organizations
with virtually unlimited funding.
The petition continued: The Hiland Consumers Association was formed in 1994
after Hiland Insurance and its agent went into bankruptcy, leaving more than
17,000 policyholders on the hook for millions in lost premiums.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we remember exactly what this is all about.
We are talking about 17,000 policyholders on the hook for millions of dollars in
lost premiums. I am told by individuals, by individuals I have spoken with,
individuals I came in contact with over the past several months, that some of
these individuals, in fact, lost from several hundred to as much as $2,000 as a
result of what happened in the Hiland Insurance misfortune; or perhaps a better
word, fiasco.
Mr. Speaker, it is now hoped that this legislation which is brought forward -
and much has been said by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, much
has been said by our own justice critic on this already, but - it is hoped that
this type of legislation will allow ordinary citizens, ordinarily Newfoundland
and Labradorians, who, on their own, may question whether it is worthwhile to
proceed on an individual basis but in a joint effort, in a combined effort, see
great value and great worth in bringing forward a claim to the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland as a part of the class action procedure.
Also, a number of months ago, at the time when a petition was brought forward
by this side of the House petitioning government to see to it that this kind of
legislation be enacted, there was also a press release put forward, and it was
coincidental with a story that came out of the Province of Ontario. In fact, I
remember when the press release was issued; we have a date here. It was issued
on March 28, 2001. That press released coincided with the story in The
Telegram that was interesting from the point of view that it referred to a
class action that was taken in the Province of Ontario.
I will just refer to it very briefly because it will give all member present
an idea as to how and when a class action proceeding may be appropriate. This,
as I have indicated, has come out of the Province of Ontario and it refers to a
former Inco nickel refinery having leaked large amounts of cancer-causing toxins
into the Southern Ontario community of Port Colborne; and, as a result of that
problem that existed in that community, a class action was undertaken. In fact,
the suit sought, in damages, $750 million against the company, against the
provincial Environment Ministry, against the region of Niagara, against the City
of Port Colborne, and against two local school boards.
That particular lawsuit had the potential of including, in this particular
case, between 20,000 and 25,000 people, both current and past residents of the
community of Port Colborne, and the residents claimed that Inco and the province
knew about a problem for years but they failed to offer compensation or pay for
a cleanup.
That is an example, certainly on a larger scale, involving some 20,000 to
25,000 either present or former residents of a community, and perhaps, on
another scale, looking at individuals, for example, who went through the very
unfortunate experience of what happened in this Province with respect to losing
perhaps as much as several hundred or, as I have indicated, as much as $2,000 as
a result of the collapse of Hiland Insurance.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as has already being expressed, now puts in
place a procedure which will allow ordinary people in our Province, when they
band together, to seriously pursue a claim if, in fact, the facts warrant, and
if, in fact, I guess, the procedure is accepted by the Supreme Court.
There are a few terms and a few clauses in the bill that I would like to
refer to specifically because they will help us understand, perhaps, and have a
greater appreciation for what is involved in a class action suit.
The act refers to common issues, so obviously the legislation contemplates
that there has to be a common issue but not, according to the act, necessarily
an identical issue of fact, or common, but not necessarily an identical issue of
law that could arise. So right in the definition
section we have some indication
of what is meant and defined by common issues.
There is, as the minister indicated yesterday in a press conference, a
certification procedure whereby it states in
section 3.(1), "One member of
a class of persons who reside in the province may commence an action in the
court on behalf of the members of that class." So obviously there has to be
some form of a representative plaintiff. And 3.(2), "The member who
commences the action shall apply to a judge of the court within the time period
in subsection (3) for an order certifying the action as a class action and
appointing the member as the representative plaintiff." Clearly, there is a
preliminary procedure known as a certification procedure which has to go through
the court, as a part of the court procedure, before the class action or the
substantive issue being determined as part of that class action is, in fact,
determined.
Section 5.(1) of the act states, "On an application made under
section 3
or 4, the court shall certify an action..." when or "...where (
a) the
pleadings disclose a cause of action; (
b) there is an identifiable class of 2 or
more persons." Now this is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to think that this
legislation could, in fact, encompass a number of persons as low as two. We just
had the example in the Province of Ontario, in the community of Port Colborne,
where there was a potential class with a number as high as 25,000. This act
contemplates a class being identified with as few as two. So, it is an
interesting section.
Section 5 continues to state, "...the court shall certify an action as a
class action where (
c) the claims of the class members raise a common issue,
whether or not the common issue is the dominant issue; (
d) a class action is the
preferable procedure to resolve the common issues of the class." There are
more sections within that particular provision and more tests, I guess, that had
to be met. So obviously the court is under some obligation to assess clearly
whether the tests had been met, whether the requisite subsections, in fact, meet
the tests to ensure that certification and, presumably, the substantive issue
being addressed in the class action proceeding can be addressed.
Interestingly, under
section 7.(2), Mr. Speaker, it goes on to state, "A
class that is made up of persons resident in the province and persons not
resident in the province shall be divided into resident and non-resident
subclasses." So it is conceivable that there could be a class action
commenced in our own Supreme Court, in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court
of this Province, that would include both residents of Newfoundland and Labrador
and non-residents.
Under
section 9.(1) the act contemplates, or suggests I guess, what the
contents of a certification order shall be. It states, "A certification
order shall (
a) describe the class in respect of which the order was made by
setting out the class's identifying characteristics;..." and this would
be right in certification order, Mr. Speaker, "...(
b) appoint the
representative plaintiff for the class; (
c) state the nature of the claims
asserted on behalf of the class; (
d) state the relief sought by the class; (
e) set out the common issues for the class; (
f) state the manner in which and the
time within which a class member may opt out of the action."
Furthermore, in
Part II of the act there is a provision indicating what the
conduct of a class action should consist of, but like any legislation there are
perhaps some improvements that can be made, and this is perhaps more appropriate
for Committee stage, when we enter into Committee.
I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General,
section 15. Upon reading a somewhat muddled, I suggest - and perhaps it
is a
section that the minister and his officials could have a look at. I would
just like to read it. Again, we are talking about applications and it is more of
interpretation than anything but it is a
section that perhaps could be clarified
and reworked to make sure that it makes a little bit more sense.
Section 15.(1) states, "The judge who makes a certification order shall
hear all applications in the class action before the trial of the common
issues."
Subsection (2) goes on to state, "Where the judge who makes a
certification order is unavailable to hear an application in the class action,
the chief justice of the court many assign another judge of the court to hear
the application."
Subsection (3), "A judge who makes a certification order or hears
applications respecting a class action may preside at the trial of the common
issues."
I find that there is some ambiguity in that particular
section 15,
particularly subsection (1), followed by (2), and followed by subsection (3).
Some thought may be given by the minister and his department to, in fact,
consider the rewording of that particular section.
It is interesting in
section 17, Mr. Speaker, that there is an opt in and opt
out provision, which essentially means that if an individual member of the
community is part of the class action proceeding there is at least an
opportunity to opt out. Conversely, if a person is not part of the class action
proceeding there is now an opportunity, under this act, to opt in. So these opt
in and opt out provisions are indeed important.
Mr. Speaker, the act is largely procedural. The act brings into question, or
gives examples, as to how members who want to participate in a class action
proceeding are to conduct themselves. Certain tests have to be met, certain
requirements have to be met and, as I have indicated, this is largely a bill
that sets out how individuals are to conduct themselves who want to form a part
of a class action proceeding.
Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly important for us to
say, on this side of the House, as members of the Official Opposition, that we
certainly have no difficulty in supporting this particular piece of legislation.
It is one that we petitioned for in this House. It is one where publicly we
expressed the view and the need that class action legislation was essential to
protect the interests of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is a bill
that we felt ought to be consistent with at least a number of other Canadian
jurisdictions. As it turns out, they are in fact the largest three Canadian
jurisdictions, namely the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. I
think it is only fitting that we, in this Province, have similar legislation,
that we now have an opportunity, and individuals have an opportunity, to band
together and to join in an action to bring similar points of concern and similar
points of interest to the Supreme Court of the Province, to have their concerns
and issues addressed and determined.
When the time comes, Mr. Speaker, I feel very safe to say that there will be
unanimous support for the passing of this legislation. It is, if I may use the
word, `progressive' legislation and it is smart legislation. What it does, and
what the minister has done in bringing this act forward, he has responded to
what individuals such as Mr. Kelly and the Hiland Consumers Association have
stated, he has responded to what we, as the Official Opposition, have presented
to this House on several occasions, and he has brought forward a piece of
legislation which is consistent with good judgement and at least shows a
willingness to respond to what ordinary citizens in this Province want and need.
On that basis, Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty supporting this and we look
forward to the Committee stage to deal with a few inconsistencies and a few,
what we would suggest to be, inaccuracies in the draft bill. We look forward, at
the end of the day, to the final reading and passage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This new Class Action Bill will have Newfoundland joining the ranks of
numerous other jurisdictions which had the wisdom to provide their citizens with
a comprehensive class proceedings regime. As my colleague said previously this
week, we have started on a chosen and tested path in helping the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, access the justice system via class
claims.
This is a positive step, Mr. Speaker. In Canada, the Province of Quebec was
the first to give residents a class proceedings act. This act was passed in 1979
and gave their legal system clear rules and procedures for the conduct of class
actions. This was unknown territory in 1979 and the Quebec experience would help
other Canadian jurisdictions decide whether or not class actions were
appropriate for their province.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Ontario started a lengthy period of study into
the suitability of class action legislation for their province. They spent
twelve years producing three separate reports on the topic prior to enacting
their act in 1992. That landmark act studied and addressed the various
criticisms of the Quebec legislation.
In 1995, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario act was used to form the basis of the
British Columbia Class Proceedings Act. That province, like Ontario before it,
looked to past experiences and previous legislation in designing its own act.
Further, Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Right Honourable Lord Woolf, Master of the
Rolls, recommended that England, which has the most historic and influential
common law system in the world, should adopt a class action regime along the
lines of those of British Columbia and Ontario. In 1998, such a system was
adopted.
The model for our act, Mr. Speaker, is the draft class proceedings act
developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, in 1996. It incorporates the
lessons learned and the best features of the Ontario and the British Columbia
acts. Such legislation provided a sound basis for launching our own class
actions regime.
Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in our efforts to increase access to justice
with a comprehensive class actions regime. In the past three years the Federal
Court of Canada's Rules Committee and the Law Reform Commissions of Alberta
and Manitoba have also brought forward reports. It is clear that we are part of
a (inaudible) Canadian trend to open provincial justice systems to a broader
base of plaintiffs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are not alone this fall in
introducing such legislation. Saskatchewan has only just finished passing its
own class action act. It should become law early in the new year. That the
legislative path is well trodden is quite clear. The question remains, Mr.
Speaker, however, as to what the practical experience has been.
I am pleased to report that the system has worked as they were designed to
do. There were concerns among some of the other jurisdictions that the courts
would be swallowed up with a rush of complex, expensive and mostly frivolous
class action cases. There were fears that thousands of claims would be rushed to
judgement without ever having been properly proven. Mr. Speaker, such
fearmongering has been shown to have been groundless.
The experience has shown that the Bar and judiciary in each of the provinces
have been acting in concert to see that the legislation is properly used to
ensure that class action litigation is conducted efficiently, fairly, and
predictably. The numbers bear this out, Mr. Speaker. In Quebec, between 1979 and
1997, only thirty-five class action suits had been decided by that province's
courts. Further, during the 1997 calendar year, a full nineteen years after the
introduction of the act, only five motions of certification were heard. In the
early years of the Quebec act, less than 50 per cent of class action suits
passed the certification stage. This shows that such a system remains
manageable, while still meeting its goals. Ontario has had a similar experience.
From the time it enacted its legislation in 1998, they saw seventy-five class
action suits launched. Of those, seventeen reached the point of certification,
and only twelve of those were certified to proceed. Again, for the jurisdiction
the size of Ontario, these are very reasonable numbers, Mr. Speaker. Given the
additional opportunities for accessing justice, this is a very manageable load
for the system to absorb.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the numbers reflect the increased ability of the public
to access the judicial system. Further, the numbers certainly do not reflect a
system under siege, as was feared by some. It is clear that the class action
legislation in Canada, in Canada's three most populous provinces, have been a
leap forward for their respective legal systems and it is only just that this
Province take the same proven path.
Bill 34, Mr. Speaker, will correct our current regime with its inflexible
rules. The implementation of this legislation will provide our citizens with a
level of access to justice. I commend the minister and the government, and I am
honoured to stand with my fellow colleagues in this House to support Bill 34.
Mr. Speaker, may it never happen again what had happened to approximately 20,000
of our residents in the ordeal that they had to go through. This legislation is
another prime example of this government's commitment to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. July 6, this government announced their intention to
draft this legislation. Mr. Speaker, here we are today honouring that
commitment.
Once again, I want to thank the minister and the government for putting forth
Bill 34, and I am honoured to say that I support this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to close debate regarding
second reading.
The Kelly bill is indeed, very important, extremely important, and I think it
shows, not only that it was needed and long overdue in this Province, but it
also shows that this government was particularly sensitive and responsive to the
need for this legislation. Mr. Kelly, who it is happily named after, should, of
course, be given absolute full credit for being -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: - for being instrumental in this regard.
I appreciate the comments of the justice critic, the Member for Lewisporte,
and the comments of the Member for St. John's East as well, concerning some
possible discussions as to some particular sections. The reference to may, and
shall, permissive, and mandatory, references in some sections of the act. Those
concerns, of course, will be dealt with in Committee stage.
I would concur, as it seems everyone in the House concurs, that this was
legislation long overdue and needed. There will not be any opposition to the
passing of the bill into its general form and if anything, maybe some minor
changes. Part of committee and part of the process, and I would certainly
wholeheartedly concur with it, is that if there is anything minor wrong with
this we would certainly be open to any suggestions and rational comments because
this is not about doing it, this is about doing it right.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf
Of A Class Of Persons," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee
of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 34)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 20, Bill 23,
An Act to Amend The Health Care Association
Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Care
Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act." (Bill
23)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the intent of the amendments to The Health Care Association Act,
Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act, is specifically to be able to
accommodate people to participate in board and council meetings by telephone and
by other communication devices. It is a very simple amendment to this act. I say
that, in essence, what it does is bring this legislation not into the
twenty-first century, but into the twentieth century, in fact.
Specifically, the amendment will allow for council meetings, participants to
take place in council meetings, via telephone or other telecommunication device
and, for the purposes of the record and the official aspect of conducting these
meetings, to be considered present and in attendance at meetings.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments being proposed here are requested, and have been
requested, by the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services
Association and by the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses. I believe that in
practical experience what they have found is that, due to geographic distances,
sometimes due to weather, and sometimes due to cost, it does not always permit
board members to be able to attend every meeting. Consequently, sometimes there
has been difficulty for the board itself in being able to achieve a quorum. This
has caused problems for them in being able to conduct their business
effectively.
Mr. Speaker, in proposing these amendments it is really with the intent of
trying to facilitate the regular conduct of board meetings and decision-making,
allowing for participation in a means that, I think, is very standardly accepted
today via telephone and telecommunication devices. I think this can only enhance
the ability of our boards to be able to do their business in an effective,
cost-effective, and efficient way.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to welcome the opportunity to make a few comments about this
bill, particularly the Health Care Association Act and the Hospitals Act,
because I think these are two critical ones given the current state of the
health system today.
I just want to talk a little bit about not just the manner in which boards
have meetings, and their ability to be able to conduct them via telephone or
other telecommunication links like that, but the whole notion of health boards,
health associations and their meetings, because they do have a critical role and
they have a function within our health system.
As we start looking at the events of the last five or six months it is kind
of important, I think, to remind ourselves of why boards exist. Health boards
are made up of people from the communities in which they live, and they
represent those communities in districts. They are the people who are closer to
the communities. These are the people who have an understanding of what issues
are important in their regions, and they have a responsibility. They have a
responsibility for governance of health services in their respective regions of
the Province. I think one of the things that they hold very dear to them is
their responsibility to the people they serve, and they are held accountable for
those people they serve.
I think we need to examine the relationship that those health boards have
with the Department of Health and Community Services, and I think it is critical
to acknowledge up front that these health boards are an important aspect of our
health system. I think it is important that the minister acknowledge the role
that they have, acknowledge her responsibility and government's
responsibility, in listening to some of the comments that they make.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to a news release from the Minister of
Health and Community Services dated March 22 of this year. At that time, the
minister indicated that there was an additional $50 million going into health
budgets, and that was going to stabilize health funding. She indicated that the
boards will now have a balanced budget in this particular fiscal year.
I listened with some interest yesterday, and I listened to the Minister of
Finance and Treasury Board when she said: We have added $50 million to our
budgets this year - in reference to health budgets. Then she goes on to say that
within six weeks of that date, within six weeks of March 22, the minister
indicated that: we heard from health boards that they were having difficulty
living within their additional budgets, or that additional $50 million.
Mr. Speaker, from my calculations, from March 22, six weeks would take you up
until the end of April. The end of April would have given you six weeks. The
Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that government was aware the end of
April that health boards were having difficulty with their budgets, and that
health boards could not function with the additional $50 million that they were
given.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make reference to another press release; because
it was four-and-a-half months later, on September 18, when the Minister of
Health and Community Services issued a press release that startled the Province
when she said that health boards - no, the health institutional boards - she did
not comment at all about the community health boards, but she said the
institutional health boards were going to have an $18 million deficit this year,
and she said it with some surprise and some shock. However, as we were told
yesterday by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, government knew this by
the end of April.
That is a clear example of where this Province has set up health boards to be
responsible for the governance of health services in respective areas in the
Province, and these boards are telling the minister, these boards are advising
the minister on issues with respect to health care in their respective regions,
and the minister is not listening - totally unheeded - proceeding ahead as if
the boards do not exist.
Mr. Speaker, we can make all the amendments we want, we can introduce all the
bills that we want, that can allow boards to function more effectively and
conduct their meetings easier, but it is useless to have the boards, regardless
of how easy it is for them to conduct their meetings, if we are not prepared to
listen to them. They have a function, and it is government's responsibility to
pay attention to the direction and the recommendations that they are getting.
Just on another point, when we heard back in the first part of November when
the minister then said that, of the $18 million deficit that we are having, we
are only able to achieve a $10 million saving. That is a reflection of what the
boards told her as well. In September, when the minister was advised that the
$18 million cuts were not achievable without making massive cuts in services and
laying off employees, the minister said that she was comfort that those $18
million could be taken out of the system without impacting services or laying
people off.
By her own admission in November, when she indicated that the boards could
only come up with $10 million of those savings and the remaining $7 million
could not be achieved, finally the minister realized the boards knew what they
were talking about. They knew what they were talking about back in March, they
knew what they were talking about in September, and finally the minister has
recognized that you cannot take that kind of money out of the system without
making massive cuts.
Mr. Speaker, the minister now needs to consider what the health boards are
currently dealing with. She firstly did not listen to them when they said they
could not live with the additional $50 million; that was not enough. She did not
listen to them when they told her they could not take $18 million out the system
without making massive cuts in services and without laying off large numbers of
employees. She did not listen at any of those times.
The minister now needs to take that kind of advice and recognize that the
boards are out there today, even though the minister did not answer my question
the other day in Question Period when I asked: What is the total accumulated
long-term debt of boards? The minister did not answer my question, but we
understand from the health boards that currently, right now today, the health
system has roughly an $80 million to $90 million accumulated deficit that they
have as long-term debt.
The boards are telling the minister today - and I suggest once again that she
needs to listen to what they are saying - that they cannot carry an $80 million
to $90 million long-term debt and service it with next year's budget. If
health boards are going to have to have an $80 million to $90 million long-term
debt on their books, how are they going to service it?
I will just use a couple of examples. In my own district, Mr. Speaker, the
Peninsulas Health Care Corporation has a $9.5 million long-term debt. The
minister is saying to the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation, you must take your
$48 million annual budget and you must carve out of it enough money to service a
$9.5 million long-term debt.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a banker but I suspect that if that board is going to
pay off that $9.5 million over a reasonable period of time, they are going to
have to encroach on that $48 million somewhere in the range of $2 million to
$2.5 million a year.
Mr. Speaker, I ask: If that board has to take a couple of million dollars out
their existing budget, if they are already tight, already strapped, already now
operating on a shoestring budget, then what that really means, if health boards
are going to service that long-term debt, they are going to have to make further
cuts. When health boards put forward their plans for next year, they are going
to include massive cuts to be able to service the large accumulated deficit.
Mr. Speaker, as I talk about health boards putting forward plans and action
plans, it begs the question: Where do they go when they are submitted? Because
last year around this time, health boards were asked to put together their
budget for the fiscal year 2001-2002. Mr. Speaker, when they were asked to put
together these budgets, they were also asked to put together an action plan.
Health boards in this Province were advised by the Minister of Health and
Community Services that included in their budgets for this fiscal year that we
are currently into, they needed to include an action plan telling her how they
were going to function within that money.
Mr. Speaker, those action plans were never acknowledged. The minister never
did tell those health boards that, your action plans are approved; or, that we
would want them modified in some fashion.
Mr. Speaker, it begs the question: If, in fact, the minister had taken those
action plans last fall, if she had taken those action plans which were the
recommendation of these same health boards that she is now trying to make more
effective in how they function, if she had taken the recommendation of those
health boards and ran with them, implemented them, it begs the question of
whether or not we would have had an announcement in September of 2001 that
health boards had an $18 million deficit.
Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as what this bill might be about - this bill focuses on
making board meetings more effective, allowing board members easier access to
meetings - the fundamental and core to this whole issue of how boards function
is whether or not the minister and the government of the day are prepared to use
those boards in a fashion in which they were established in the first place,
which clearly is to take people from communities and appoint them to health
boards because they, in fact, have a good grasp of the health system in their
respective areas. They understand the health issues in their respective areas,
and they are in a better position to put together the action plans and the
strategies for the delivery of health services in those areas.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to have effectively run boards, then the
minister is going to have to acknowledge that she is going to have to take their
advice periodically. It is no longer rational or reasonable for government to be
appointing boards and ignoring their mandate, ignoring the advice they are
giving them.
Mr. Speaker, the direction very clearly to the minister is: It is one thing
to make legislation like this so that boards can in fact function effectively,
but it is a very different story when you take those boards - and they are all
making major commitments. They are, in fact, volunteering their time. These
people do not get paid , Mr. Speaker. These people are volunteering their time,
on a weekly basis, making a significant contribution to the communities in which
they live, and it is about time that government start paying attention to the
advice that these boards are giving them.
If the government is not prepared to take the advice of these boards then the
minister, rather than amending legislation and creating bills for them to
function, should re-examine how they function. Because clearly, Mr. Speaker,
this government has shown a blatant disregard for health boards in this
Province.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that she would re-evaluate not
just how boards function but how the relationship between boards and government
exist. It is about time that the department started to re-evaluate that
relationship.
Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on the bill before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill because it allows for the opportunity for
organizations like health boards within our Province that, despite geographic
distances and other obstacles, are still able to come together to share in the
participation and the administration of our health care system within
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I know all too well what it is like to have a region that poses
difficulty in terms of being able to get together and meet and hold meetings on
a regular basis. When you look at the communication technology that we use today
in both teleconferencing and in videoconferencing, in telephone systems, it is
the norm, it is the way that we do business around the world these days, and it
is only right that these organizations and entities have the opportunity to be
able to perform the important business that they carry out in the very same
manner.
Mr. Speaker, I want to certainly respond to some of the comments as well that
have been made this evening by the Member for Trinity North. One that I take
great offence to is his comment in which he references this government's
blatant disregard for boards throughout our Province. I would like to say that
we have shown the greatest respect, the greatest admiration, for the work that
health boards do in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: We realize, Mr. Speaker, that the people who put themselves
forward to serve on these boards and in those capacities every single day deal
with the same situations, the same circumstances and the same challenges within
our health care system as we do in this House, and others around the Province.
We respect them for the work they do, and we have carried on a long-established
relationship with those individuals not only on a regular basis but a day-to-day
basis, as need be, in terms of delivering health care to the people of this
Province.
He talks about cutting $18 million from health boards. Mr. Speaker, we are
not cutting $18 million. In the last Budget, we put $50 million into stabilizing
health boards in this Province. The hon. member was one of the members who
tapped his desk that day and congratulated this government for that investment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, he understood at that time the importance of
making an investment of this nature to the boards in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: He understood the necessity of being able to offer
stabilization, and being able to top up the budgets with any - any - dollars
that we had available, Mr. Speaker, any dollars that we had available.
We had an agreement, Mr. Speaker, and we are working with these boards to
ensure that we can deliver the best possible health care services within this
Province, within the allocations that have been made.
Mr. Speaker, we are listening to the people of this Province. Just recently
the Minister of Health completed a series of health forums around the Province.
In each region she had participation. She heard the views of what people had to
say. She listened to their suggestions in terms of how we should be
restructuring and moving in terms of health care within the Province.
Mr. Speaker, that was the most extensive communications and listening
consultation that has ever occurred in health within this Province to date. So
to say that we are not listening; the facts speak for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, it is not only about listening, it is also about participating,
and that is why we brought forward the amendments in this bill today, so that we
can allow the people who are representatives of boards and other organizations
and entities to participate in a very meaningful way, to ensure that their vote
is counted at the table whether it is through video teleconferencing, whether it
is through telephone systems, whether it is through teleconferencing, or
whatever the mechanism may be. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that we do
hear the views of the people and that they have equal participation, no matter
where they live in the Province, in the business of the organization or the
entity that they are involved with.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to support the bill that is put
forward. I certainly understand and agree with the importance of having these
amendments passed in the House today, and I would ask that all members support
the amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak on this bill as well today. This bill is straightforward. It
amends the Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical
Nurses Act, to allow for, subject to the organization's by-laws or
regulations, members of the boards and councils to participate in board and
council meetings via telephone and other telecommunications devices that allow
all persons participating in the meeting to hear each other.
As the previous speakers have said, it certainly lends for more inclusion,
more participation by board members from all parts of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. This initiative, as well, will probably result in
lower costs incurred by board members and council members, as there will be
reduced travel and travel associated costs incurred by the members. It may also
boost attendance at meetings by making it easier and more convenient for members
to participate in such meetings.
There is one question that I would like to ask the Minister of Health today
regarding this amendment: If people are participating in meetings by telephone
from their homes, will they continue to receive the same per diem allowance as
they receive if they were to travel in person to a meeting?
As was echoed by my colleague here when he spoke a few moments ago, it is all
very well to have meetings of the health boards, whether they are held in person
or held by telephone or other means of electronic telecommunication, but the
important part, and the part that is really missing here, is whether or not the
minister is listening to what the boards have to say. That has not been echoed
in the past. We see the health and community services boards out there now
looking for more money and complaining to the Department of Health that there
has been a freeze on home care which is resulting in higher end costs by people
being maintained in hospitals, which, of course, is causing great distress to
many of the patients. The minister is not listening to the boards on those
aspects.
One of the questions that I ask is: Whether the meeting are held in person or
by telephone, will the minister heed the messages that the boards are giving
out?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes today to
speak to this bill and, first off, to commend the Minister of Health who is
doing an excellent job of getting around the Province and listening to people
who know about health care. This minister is very dedicated to the task.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to meet the challenges in health care in a very
aggressive fashion. Government, in the last five years, has committed over $300
million worth of budget increases. We are up to $1.4 billion now in the health
care budget. I think everybody in the Province understands that we have to work
together to try to work out what is the best health care system that we can
possibly put forward. Our Minister of Health is very involved, at this point,
with her officials in doing that. Also, a key part of that are the boards who
are responsible for administering. It is very important for the boards. People
who volunteer to be on these boards meet on a continuing basis and they try to
deal with the challenges, and also try to reflect in each of the areas of the
Province, the needs of the people who want to see a health care system that
works for them in that area.
Mr. Speaker, on that note I would like to say that in our area, the District
of Stephenville and Bay St. George area, we were very pleased recently with the
Western Health Care Board and the decision to put a new dialysis service in
Stephenville for people who need it. A case was made. I want to thank a
gentleman, Mr. Don Tompkins, a senior citizen who went to work with the
committee, who was able to put the case forward to the board and was able to
convince the board, vocally with board members, that this service was needed.
Also, to thank the Department of Health because the Department of Health was
able to ensure that in the budget there was funding there to operate the
service. That is an example of how the boards can work and see a service that is
needed come into place. It is working well. It needs to be improved, and that is
what the Minister of Health is doing.
This bill talks about how to improve the operations of the boards, but on the
overall, when we look at where we have been, the first priority, the major
priority in this administration, if you look at the budget that we put forward,
has been health care. There is not a question mark about it. We have increased
the budgets, we have worked with the boards, and we are continuing to do that.
We have to find inventive ways to get more technology into the system to help
with that. Our minister and our government has pressured the federal government,
been involved in that, in ensuring that the federal government spends more money
in health care. That is something that we need to see happen, especially with
our challenges of geography where we are trying to deal with a population in a
large rural area in the Province. So it is important that we continue to make
representations to the federal government. It is extremely important that we
make these representations strongly so that areas in rural Canada - like in our
Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - see improvements. The minister is
meeting that challenge. She has been working diligently to do that, and we look
forward to seeing more improvements made in the near future, Mr. Speaker. We
will see that happen by working together in collaboration.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to rise in support of the amendments to this bill as well. I
have to agree that the huge costs of travel, particularly in areas such as
Labrador, are certainly astronomical and consumes a huge chunk of the board's
budget. There is no question, there are better uses for that money to be spent
directly on health care for the people who live in the regions. Mr. Speaker,
most of the boards around the Province are preoccupied with their deficit
positions and the high cost of travel, particularly when you have to fly to each
and every meeting from all across Labrador. It would certainly do a lot in
bringing their budgets more inline, but more importantly, freeing up much needed
money to spend on direct health care needs of the residents of Labrador.
I would like to talk about some of the problems that we incur as residents
living in Labrador. For example, the long waiting lists people have to endure to
get appointments are mainly here in St. John's because this is where most
people have to travel if they have any serious medical problems whatsoever.
Coupled with that, Mr. Speaker, many times what happens is that there are a
series of appointments that a person has to make once they receive the initial
visit to a doctor here in the capital. They are not taking into consideration
the needs of the people who have to travel and the difficulties, financial and
otherwise, that they endure by having to make such trips.
It is not uncommon at all for someone from Labrador to be out here going to a
hospital, seeing a doctor here in St. John's and they make an appointment for
them to come back again next week or the week after, and probably make a series
of appointments. You wouldn't know but all they had to do was walk out into
their driveway, get aboard the car and drive for a few hours and be here. Well,
it is not that way at all, as you are aware. It is a great cost travelling from
Labrador to St. John's. It is a great expense to the person, to the patient,
to their families, and whoever else accompanies them, depending on the
seriousness of their illness.
There is also a problem, Mr. Speaker, in communication. A little while ago,
about a month ago, in Labrador West the Women's Wellness Centre was
discontinued for a period of time. Now the health corporation board said that
they did not have any intention of discontinuing that service to the women of
Labrador West and Churchill Falls area, but the way it was handled, the way it
was communicated, caused a lot of concern in the community. Most of the talk
surrounding what happened at the Women's Wellness Centre, was that it was
going to close. That caused a lot of turmoil, a lot of concern, and a lot of
anxiety for people in Labrador West. So the communication aspect has to be
improved, Mr. Speaker, in order for the boards to clearly let the people in the
regions know what their intentions are on any particular topic.
Mr. Speaker, also in Labrador West we need more specialist visits in all
areas of the medical profession. We need increased physiotherapy facilities.
There are long waiting lines for people to get physiotherapy that they badly
need. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is no question, it is easier to arrange
meetings by telephone or by other electronic means than it is to have everyone
try and congregate in one area, in one room, at any particular point in time,
particularly when they live hundreds of miles away from each other. It also
allows for fuller participation because if a person, who is on a board, cannot
make it to a particular town for a meeting on a particular night then they very
well may be in a position to take
part in that meeting, via teleconferencing or
other means that they may have available to them.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to say that I support the amendments to this
bill. As I said earlier, the monies that are used now in travel can much better
be used to provide direct health care benefits to the people in the different
regions around this Province.
The other thing I would like to touch on, before I conclude, is on the need
to increase the travel subsidy that is available to residents of Labrador under
the non-emergency medical relief fund. That was brought into effect many, many
years ago. It needs to be increased in light of today's costs, because the
cost incurred today by families who have to travel to St. John's is certainly
much greater than it was when this program was put in place.
Mr. Speaker, in saying that, I certainly rise in favour of the changes and
the amendments to this bill. Again, I say that definitely the money that is used
for travel can best be directed towards direct health care and the residents of
Labrador; and other regions of this Province will hopefully be better off as a
result.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now she will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank my colleagues for their support for this piece of
legislation, the amendment to the Health Care Association Act, the Hospitals Act
and Licensed Practical Nurses Act.
From the comments of all my colleagues in the House everyone would recognize,
certainly, that there are many challenges facing health care and there is a need
to achieve every possible efficiency that we can within our health care system
if we are going to be able to meet the many needs of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in this area.
In one small way, this particular amendment to these acts will permit our
boards, who are on the front lines of trying to deliver health services to
people across this Province, to do their jobs more efficiently. It will perhaps
- as the last speaker just indicated - as well, enable for broader
representation and input to the boards if, in fact, people who live quite a
distance from where the board meets are able to convene and have their input via
teleconference, telephone or something of that nature.
So I believe that this is something that is timely and that will achieve
greater efficiency for our boards. It is something they are looking for, and I
am pleased to be able to bring it forward today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the debate on second reading.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Care Association Act,
Hospitals Act And Licensed Practical Nurses Act," read a second time,
ordered preferred to the Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 19, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act
To Amend The Registered Nurses Act," Bill 26.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses
Act." (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of this piece of legislation is really to validate a separate
category of nurse practitioner specialist. Currently under our legislation,
nurse practitioner specialists have been extended and given extended diagnostic
and prescriptive authorities, and that is as a result of recent amendments to
their regulations. However, given that these practice protocols are not provided
for in the Registered Nurses Act, these powers could be challenged, and this is
something we wanted to be able to rectify. The amendment, therefore, will
outline the authority of the act to adopt practice protocols and to validate a
separate category called nurse practitioner specialist.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Registered Nurses Act
regarding this are being brought forward after considerable consultation. The
department and officials have met with members of the Association of Registered
Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have consulted with the Newfoundland
Medical Board, with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, with the
Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association and with our Health Boards Association
and, in all of these cases, they have met with support for this particular
amendment.
The amendment will also explicitly identify the appointment, the duties and
the authority of the committee of representatives which is currently referred to
section 22.1 of the Registered Nurses Act. This includes the role of the
committee, the core representation from the three bodies who will make up the
committee, and it will identify and again prescribe the protocols subject to
regulations being developed by the Association of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are other provinces across the country who have moved in this direction
and who specifically recognize nurse practitioner or extended or advanced
practice in nursing, and we will be joining them with this specific amendment.
For the most part, Mr. Speaker, what the act does is validate something that
we have already put in place through regulation that is working well, and we
want to ensure that we have the appropriate authority to be able to sustain and
continue with this practice.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North .
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure, actually, to support this bill. I think, as the minister
has indicated, it puts the legislative framework in place to protect the nurse
practitioners who are already established in the Province.
I want to commend government for having taken the step to establish nurse
practitioners in the Province. I think it reflects a very progressive view, it
acknowledges the training and the expertise that nurses have, and acknowledges
that there is a role within the health system for a very diversified group of
practitioners, and also that we should be very cognition of the fact that many
health providers have a level of training that allows them to perform certain
tasks well beyond what they are currently doing. As we start looking at the
means and ways in which to provide a more effective and efficient health system,
a better utilization and maximum utilization of all our health providers becomes
critical, and I commend government for doing that.
I would make the comment to the minister, Mr. Speaker: As government starts
to look at expanding the role of nurse practitioners - and we understand that
they are already established in a number of clinical settings around the
Province - I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister has given some thought to
looking at expanding the scope of practice of nurses in a number of other areas.
I am thinking particularly of oncology. Given the current state of the
difficulties and challenges we are having in recruiting medical oncologists for
the Province, it begs the question of whether or not we now need to re-examine
the role of nurses within the provision of that oncology service.
I think particularly of a setting like Corner Brook where the Cancer Research
Foundation has a clinic and has for some time been challenged to find a medical
oncologist. It would appear that there is no end in sight. It would appear that
services still have a vacancy. As we understand, there have been arrangements
made to have an oncologist travel there once every couple of months. Mr.
Speaker, anyone who has had some experience with that service would acknowledge
that having a medical oncologist visit every couple of months is not adequate
service.
I guess it begs the question, Mr. Speaker, about whether or not it is now
time to look at expanding the role of nurses in some other areas as well, and
oncology becomes one of those areas that I think lends itself to allowing nurses
to have their scope of practice extended, to be able to provide an expanded
service well within their scope of training and to be able to provide improved
service to the clients who deal with that particular condition.
Mr. Speaker, once again I want to support the bill and commend government for
having expanded the role of nurses and look forward, as we start looking at
changes in our health system, to the expanded roles of many other health
practitioners to ensure that they are all able to practice within the scope of
their training. I welcome some legislation and some changes in that direction.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I, too, rise in support of the amendment to The Registered Nurses Act. I
congratulate the minister that now nurses are using the full scope of their
training and expertise and doing things that they are quite capable and quite
interested in doing.
As an example, Madam Speaker, the Women's Wellness Centre in Labrador West
that I referred to in my earlier comments is being run by a nurse, a nurse who,
by the way, Madam Speaker, I am proud to say, from all the reports that I am
getting, is doing a fabulous job in running that clinic, much needed by the
community.
I think, in expanding the jobs and the roles that I know they have been
doing, when you add extra duties to the nursing profession I think it is also
incumbent upon government to look at the number of nurses in the system, because
obviously there are more nurses needed in our hospitals throughout this
Province.
Just a few short words in closing. Nurses are trained for this, they are
quite capable of performing this type of work, the expanded duties. They have
been doing it and they look forward to it. So I think the minister is to be
commended for making the changes necessary to allow them to finally legitimately
exercise their responsibilities in the manner in which they were trained.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I want, certainly, to rise and have a few comments on this bill, The
Registered Nurses Act, regarding nursing practitioner specialist.
Madam Speaker, these are, no doubt, people within our medical system who
contribute a great deal, especially when you look at regions like my district,
in particular, where you have a lot of isolated communities and small run clinic
operations. Most of the people that work in those clinics have certainly been
trained in more advanced medical training in terms of being able to do
diagnostics and prescription work, as well. You will find that a lot of these
people, in the last couple of years, have endeavored to participate in the
nursing practitioner program and nursing practitioner specialist program in
order to upgrade themselves and to better prepare themselves for the work that
they do in these communities.
Madam Speaker, it is very important, certainly, to recognize and acknowledge
that and acknowledge the contribution that they make, because it is sometimes
very difficult when you find yourself in a community like Nain or Port Hope
Simpson or Hopedale or Mary's Harbour where you have to depend upon referral
services of another hospital that is certainly outside of the area and requires
air medivacs in order to be able to access it. You really need to have
individuals that have the full gamut of qualifications and skills to be able to
manage and deliver the health care services in those particular communities.
We have been very fortunate, not only in coastal Labrador but all across the
Province, to have such well-trained, well-experienced, well-equipped nurses
within our system, within our health care system, and those that certainly have
taken their training a step further and have done the nursing practitioner
specialist training to be able to deliver the best possible service, no matter
where you are within the Province. I want to recognize them today and to
recognize the level of service that they are providing, not only in my own
district, in coastal Labrador, but in all the different regions around the
Province.
I think the minister has brought forward these amendments today to better
accommodate them within their profession. It is something that they have
certainly been asking for and I think it is important that government has acted
upon that request and fulfilled it.
Madam Speaker, I would hope that all the people in this House would certainly
support this in support of what these nurses are doing out there in our
communities in terms of enhancing their skills and their training in this
particular field.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to say a few words on Bill 26, and I start by saying that this is a
good piece of legislation. I know first-hand the fear and concern in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, representing a rural district, in trying to keep
doctors in rural areas of this Province. The main reason, Mr. Speaker, we have
problems keeping doctors in our rural areas is because of the demand on their
services, because of their lack of free time, their lack of family time. Most of
the complaints that I hear, from talking with doctors that want to move, it is
because they want to make themselves a better life, to have more free time, and
to have some degree, I suppose, of family life. That is not always available
when you have one doctor serving fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen communities. In
fact, speaking of doctors, Mr. Speaker, I understand that even now 34 per cent
of our doctors in this Province, 34 per cent of our doctors, are looking at the
possibility of leaving this Province and going somewhere else. That's
frightening, and you know the first places that they are going to move from is
going to be from rural areas.
I believe, I firmly believe, that this piece of legislation, while it does
not designate any number for nurse practitioners, it certainly shores up what
nurse practitioners do and the services they perform. I do not know how many
nurse practitioners have been trained, I say to the minister. Maybe she will
give us that number when she stands to close the debate. I know of two in my
particular area. I know of a nurse practitioner serving in Bonavista under the
supervision of the doctor at the health clinic there. You can go into the
hospital there at any time when that nurs