Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 24 May 2007 (45th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLV No. 18)
2007-05-24
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 24, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 18
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we are pleased to welcome thirty Grade 8 students from Our
Lady of Mercy School in St. George's, in the District of St. George's-Stephenville
East. These students are accompanied by their teachers, Ms Darlene Sexton, Ms
Roxanne Garnier, Mr. Ivan MacDonald, as well as their chaperones, Arlene
Blanchard-White, Eli White, Sylvia White, and their bus driver, Mr. Paul
Johnson.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We would also wish to welcome twenty-two Grade 6 students
from Newton Elementary school in the District of Mount Pearl. They are
accompanied by their teacher, Ms Allison Pincent, and their chaperones, Ms
Denise Coombs, Ms Bernice Sullivan, and Mr. Carl Burt. A very special welcome to
one young student, Nicholas Taylor, who I understand is spending part of his day
at his father's workplace in the House of Assembly.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the
District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West;
the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the
Member for the District of Exploits; and, the hon. the Member for the District
of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Her Excellency the Governor
General of Canada announced the awarding of fifteen Decorations for Bravery.
The Decorations for Bravery, Mr. Speaker, were established in 1972 as part of
the Canadian honours system, and the medal is awarded for acts of bravery in
hazardous circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, Gerald Alfred Strickland, a resident of Newman's Cove,
Bonavista Bay, will receive one of these Medals of Bravery.
Mr. Speaker, on January 23, 2006, Gerald Strickland saved an elderly couple
from their burning house in Newman's Cove, Bonavista Bay. After entering the
flaming house, Mr. Strickland called out to the occupants and heard a muffled
reply from a man. Through the blinding smoke, Mr. Strickland made his way
towards the kitchen where he bumped into the man's wheelchair, stuck in the
doorway.
Mr. Speaker, although gasping for air, Mr. Strickland was able to free the
wheelchair and bring the man outside. Only after they were outside did he notice
that the victim's wife had been holding onto the wheelchair as it was pulled
to safety, seconds before the house was completely engulfed in flames.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members of the House of Assembly join with me in
saying a sincere thank you to Mr. Strickland, and offer our congratulations in
receiving this recognition for saving the lives of this elderly couple.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Tom
Tarrant on his induction into the Sport Newfoundland & Labrador Hall of Fame
for his achievements in soccer. Mr. Tarrant entered the Hall of Fame in the
Athlete category.
Tom Tarrant, whose hometown of St. Lawrence was once referred to as the hot
bed' of soccer in the Province, was considered one of the best soccer players
ever. His team, the St. Lawrence Laurentians, which captured five straight
provincial senior soccer championships, was voted team of the decade in the
1970s.
Mr. Tarrant played with the Memorial University Beothucks Soccer Team, the
Newfoundland & Labrador Summer Games Soccer Team and the Newfoundland &
Labrador Soccer Team. He was selected to the Canadian Pan Am Soccer Team in
1975, only the second Newfoundlander to earn a spot on the team. Over the course
of his soccer career, he achieved numerous awards for his accomplishments,
including co-winner of the Newfoundland & Labrador Senior Male Athlete of
the Year Award in 1975.
Others inducted were William Breen of St. John's, Mike Kelly of Bell
Island, Matthew Foster, originally of Ireland now living in St. Johns, Robert
Hillier of Mount Pearl, and Gordon Follett of St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr.
Tarrant and other inductees on this honour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize an outstanding young athlete from this Province,
Mr. Joey Russell. Mr. Russell, a native of Labrador City, is an eighteen
year-old figure skater who now trains in Barrie, Ontario. On May 21, just a few
days ago, he was named to the 2007-2008 Skate Canada Senior National Team. This,
in itself, is quite an accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, but this is also the first
time that a skater from this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has made it
on the Senior National Team's roster.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Joey Russell began skating at the young age of seven and over
the years he has won numerous awards. In 2004, he was the runner-up for the
national novice men's crown; and in 2006, he captured the Canadian Junior
title. As well, Mr. Speaker, Joey Russell was named Newfoundland and Labrador's
Junior Male Athlete of the Year for 2006.
This remarkable young athlete will share the ice with some of the top
international stars this year. I ask all members of this hon. House to join me
in congratulating and recognizing figure skater, Joey Russell, on making the
national senior team.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this House to acknowledge and congratulate the Cape Ray Come
Home Year Committee. This group, with over twenty members, has been busy for
more than a year planning and fundraising for the community's first-ever Come
Home Year celebrations this summer, from July 20 to 28.
Fundraising for the celebrations included a kitchen party, which took place
on April 7, a community supper on April 22, and a float-a-note race on May 20.
On March 11, my wife and I and some friends had the pleasure of attending their
community brunch at Cape Ray, where the community came out in droves to enjoy a
hearty meal with their family and friends to support the fundraising efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the committee has hired a number of workers who are building
benches and tables for use during the events and will be constructing a stage
and dance floor. There will also be upgrades to the community ballfield, which
will be the location of the first ball tournament in the community since the
mid-1980s.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in acknowledging
and congratulating the Cape Ray Come Home Year Committee on their first-ever
Come Home Year celebrations, this July 20 to 28. We wish them all the best.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the members of
the 166 th Newfoundland Field Regiment Royal Artillery of World War
II.
In 1940, the 57 th Regiment Royal Artillery was formed and in 1941
the 57 th became the 166 th Newfoundland Field Regiment.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the privilege to take
part in a ceremony
celebrating the dedication of an original cannon used by the 166 th
Gunners called a 25 Pounder. The gun had an effective range of up to seven miles
and a good six man crew could get it in action in one minute.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago the 166 th Association under the
President of Bob Rideout located one of these rare guns in Ontario and managed
to search out the funds necessary to purchase it.
During the dedication there was a roll call of gunners of the Exploits Region
who died during service in World War II, followed by a silent act of
remembrance.
Mr. Speaker, the gun will be displayed prominently on the War Memorial
Grounds in Grand Falls-Windsor.
I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Veterans of
the 166 th Field Regiment on procuring and displaying this memorable
piece of our Province's war history.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on May 11 I had the privilege of attending the Level III
graduation at King Academy in Harbour Breton. The graduation ceremony began with
a thanksgiving service at St. Joseph's Church officiated by Father Edward
Brophy, Reverend Neil Buffett and Pastor Allison McGregor, followed by a formal
dinner and graduation march at the high school.
The class of 2007 included thirty-seven very proud graduates. In a community
that continues to struggle due to an unfortunate economic crisis, it was indeed
a pleasure to see potential community leaders put their challenges behind them
and focus on future opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join with their principal, Mr. Terry Baker,
their homeroom teachers, Bill Snook and John Herritt, and congratulate the Level
III students on their accomplishments.
During the evening, Ms Georgina Ollerhead posed a toast to the graduates
while graduate Natasha Pittman responded. In addition, graduate Kayla Stewart
provided a toast to teachers while their teacher, Mr. Bill Snook, responded. A
toast to the parents was provided by graduate Sarah Hickey and Mr. Junior
Lambert responded. The evening concluded with a cap and gown ceremony and grand
march at the school.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating the
2007 graduating class of King Academy and wish them best wishes for all their
future endeavours.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues that an
awareness campaign, aimed at reducing youth violence in Newfoundland and
Labrador, was launched in Stephenville last week.
It includes television advertisements, posters and a Web site - outragenl.ca.
All materials were very well received by the 400 high school students and the
members of forty community organizations who attended the launch.
Every day, Mr. Speaker, young people are experiencing physical, emotional,
sexual and cyber violence. However, research tells us that
an act of violence
can be stopped in ten seconds when a bystander steps in to support the victim.
The slogan for the awareness campaign is Stand Up, Reach Out, Take Action
against Violence. It was created with the help of youth from across Newfoundland
and Labrador. We hope to impress upon our young people that their actions can
help reduce, or even eliminate, many acts of violence.
The provincial government has been working hard to ensure that we support
communities in their violence prevention efforts. Funding for the renewed
Violence Prevention Initiative - Taking Action Against Violence has been
increased substantially, with a total investment of $7.5 million over six years.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we introduced the Safe and Caring School
Policy. Since that time, schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador have
embraced these policies and adapted them to suit their unique school
environments.
Our Lady of Mercy Elementary School in St. George's is an example of how
schools are taking a leadership role in combating violence. Staff and students
have created a school violence prevention program. It gives youth the ability to
solve problems and take steps themselves to reduce violence. They work with each
other to make sure their school is safe and that everyone is treated with
respect.
Mr. Speaker, the Grade 8 history class from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary is
in the gallery today. They are in St. John's to visit The Rooms, Signal Hill,
and other historic sites in the region. Many of these students are monitors in
the school violence prevention program.
It is encouraging to see schools implement creative programs to combat
violence - programs that help our young people understand and spread the message
that violence is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is committed to providing continued
support to schools and to communities at large to prevent all forms of violence.
I encourage my hon. colleagues to visit the Web site, outragenl.ca, review the
material that is provided for the youth of our Province, and speak to this issue
at every possible opportunity.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say
that we go along with this wonderful initiative to help reduce youth violence in
our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it is good to see so many students and all the community
organizations mentioned in her statement coming together, because I believe that
is what has to be done; we have to work together as a total community to bring
this to a head.
The minister made a comment in her statement that it only takes ten seconds
for a bystander to stop violence. How true that is, Mr. Speaker, because I
remember, during our Estimates meetings, I mentioned to the minister about
bullying in the schools and she confirmed that she also spoke with teachers who
made the comment that they are always the last person to see what happens. So,
we have to put other initiatives in place like, for instance, the school that is
here today, Our Lady of Mercy Elementary, and to know that they have taken
initiatives to help in their community and in their school.
I want to commend them on that, and to say I hope they have a wonderful trip
to St. John's, and when they go back that the plans they have put in place can
be delivered to each and every school in our Province so that this issue will
not become a major problem like we see in other parts of our country and
throughout the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for her
advance copy.
I, too, am quite pleased to see the initiative that has been put in place and
moving into its next stages and next steps. I welcome the students from Our Lady
of Mercy Elementary and I, too, congratulate them on the initiative that they
are getting into. They are providing a tremendous service in their school,
because one of the experiences of students who are bullied, which is one of the
expressions of the violence, is that they feel absolutely alone and they feel
scared and they feel nobody is listening to them. So, if the students in Our
Lady of Mercy can find a way to help identify children who are being bullied,
their classmates, and can bring that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MS MICHAEL: By leave, please, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The member has asked for leave.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you.
If they can find a way to be there for their classmate or classmates, if they
can find a way to make sure that this is brought to the teachers and to those in
administration so that these children do not feel alone in what they are
experiencing, they will be providing a tremendous service.
I congratulate them on their efforts, and I hope that what they do in their
school can be learned in other schools.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues about an investment the
provincial government is making in a company on the Northern Peninsula.
Recently, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development approved
a $200,000 loan from its Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Fund for Canada Ice
Enterprises in St. Anthony. The company will use this funding, as well as
investments from other sources, to implement its marketing plan and for working
capital. Mr. Speaker, the company is expected to create fourteen jobs this year.
Canada Ice produces bottled water from icebergs. Its product is called 80
Degrees North Iceberg Water and is marketed as the "purest water on the
planet". On a parts per billion basis, PCBs and other pollutants are not
detectable because the ice used by Canada Ice comes from icebergs formed
thousands of years ago, long before the age of industrialization and pollution.
The bottled water market is valued between $150 million and $200 million a
year in Canada, and $7 billion in the United States. The market is segmented in
three tiers. There is store-brand water, branded water, and premium water.
Canada Ice's water is premium water. It competes with the very best and
highest priced waters available to consumers in the world.
Canada Ice is targeting markets in Canada and the United States, in
particular Texas. This year it will launch its product in Austin, Houston,
Dallas, and San Antonio. One Texas chain alone will be putting the product into
almost 600 of its stores. Canada Ice is available presently in Pioneer
Petroleum, Sunoco Stations and 7-11 stores in Ontario, as well as Irving
stations throughout Atlantic Canada. It is found in Sobeys stores in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and will soon be available in Sobeys locations
throughout the Maritimes. 80 Degrees North is also found in many retail outlets
throughout Atlantic Canada and is served on all Provincial Airlines flights.
Canada Ice has taken a commodity that we have in relative abundance - most
years, anyway - icebergs, this year in particular, and turned it into an
economic opportunity to position itself in the premium segment of a growing
industry. Our government is pleased to support this innovative company and many
other companies throughout the Province, particularly in rural areas.
To demonstrate our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the
provincial government allocated more than $70 million in Budget 2007 to
stimulate business growth, to create jobs and to strengthen the economies of
rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Canada Ice on its energy and enterprise, and I
wish them every success in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.
This is, indeed, a company that should be supported, and it is a type of
company that we like to see, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I
commend Mr. Marshall Dean, the owner of the company, for hanging in there and
doing what he can to try and stem the serious out-migration that we are seeing
from rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is a company that, when you look at it and look at how they have done
everything they can to ensure that they continue to exist in a Province and
market their product throughout the world - it is giving us a great reputation
as well - that you have to be proud of.
There are a lot of other companies in this Province who really need the
support of the government, and I am hoping that the $70 million that the
minister references as being budgeted for in 2007 will indeed get spent, and not
be carried over into next year, as we know has happened in the past, when
companies have not taken advantage of the money for whatever reason.
So, I would encourage the government to do its part to get out there and make
companies aware of this revenue that is available to them, and make sure that
they take advantage of it so that we see more of this in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador in particular.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy.
I am very pleased to see this loan being given to the company on the Northern
Peninsula. What encourages me is that, with regard to the water that they are
bottling, it is water from icebergs. I would hope that this is the kind of
environmentally-friendly business that the government would continue to support.
I would urge us to be careful, though, if ever we see more movement towards
the bottling of water from water on land, underground water, that we give second
thoughts to it, or to bulk water, both of which have environmental concerns.
However, this creative use of icebergs is a really good way to go, and I
compliment the government on supporting this business.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our provincial historic sites create enlightening, compelling and evocative
visitor experiences in which stories are told that relate to the history of each
site, and on to the broader history of the community, the region, as well as the
Province.
During the 2006 season, some 68,000 people visited our historic sites,
walking where the Beothuk once walked, experiencing nineteenth-century living in
several historic houses and military structures, and visiting the site of our
first Trans-Atlantic telegraph communications system. On Saturday, May 19, our
provincial historic sites opened for the summer season, providing visitors an
opportunity to actively learn and celebrate the culture of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I rise in this House today, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House of how the
provincial government, in partnership with stakeholders and the community at
large, is seeking innovative interpretive options for our provincial historic
sites that will fully engage visitors and communities in which they are located.
Budget 2007 continues government's three-year investment of $17.6 million
to implement the Province's first cultural plan. Entitled, Creative
Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Development and Investment in
Culture , the plan outlines major policies and directions to preserve,
support and develop our Province's rich cultural resources.
This year's investment includes $675,000 for the continued revitalization
of provincial historic sites. We are also very pleased, in Budget 2007, to
provide additional funding that will allow free admission on Sundays to our
provincial historic sites. We hope that this will encourage everyone to seek out
and visit these sites across Newfoundland and Labrador that are so richly
steeped in culture and in heritage.
Mr. Speaker, over the last three months officials in my department have been
working with consultants to develop innovative and engaging plans for the
re-interpretation of Quidi Vidi Battery, Commissariat House and Cape Bonavista
Lighthouse. We are currently in the process of consulting with several
stakeholder groups on our plans for these sites. We hope to begin the
implementation of these plans during this current season.
Mr. Speaker,
interpretation plans for all provincial historic sites assist in
making our history come alive, both for the communities involved and the people
who visit and wish to become immersed in this Province's very rich history.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
No doubt, the Province is very proud of our historic sites, but let me say to
the minister, if you want to talk of historic sites, come and see the majestic
buildings in Hopedale. Come to Hebron, visit Nachvak and Hebron Fjords where the
caribou roam and the polar bears roam. Come to the North Coast of Labrador and
see where the Aboriginal people, the first people in this Province, built their
houses and their homes.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the caribou herds that roam the hills on the North
Coast of Labrador would welcome free admission, not only on Sundays but every
day of the week, and welcome tourists to come and hoof the hillsides on a sunny
day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Minister, I say to you again, if there is anything you can
do to promote the North Coast of Labrador for these events, we welcome any help
that this government can give; because, when it comes to historic sites, culture
and history, the riding of Torngat Mountains on the North Coast of Labrador
takes a back seat to nobody.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister, also, for the advance copy of his statement.
I, too, have a suggestion for the minister which is a creative idea also.
Last week I was at the opening, in The Rooms, of the new exhibit on The Battery,
which was a joint effort of The Rooms with the Folklore Department of Memorial
University; and, of course, in September that exhibit will shut down at The
Rooms. I have a creative idea for how that could be put in a small building at
the entrance to The Battery and be a permanent cultural site information centre,
so I would be happy to talk to the minister about that later on.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about the 6,000 reports done on
3,500 people by the radiologist who has been suspended from the Burin Peninsula
Health Centre. What is not known at this point is who comprises these 3,500
people affected. Clearly, many more people had various testing done at this
centre since November of last year when this radiologist was hired.
I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Given the fear and
stress being experienced by all who had testing done by a radiologist at the
Burin Peninsula Health Centre, will he order Eastern Health to contact all 3,500
people affected so that others will not be worrying needlessly, waiting to hear
if they are affected by this travesty?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health, as we speak, in the last couple
of days, have had some people on the ground on the Burin Peninsula, in the Burin
Peninsula Health Centre, available to talk with patients. Anyone who has any
concerns can come in and meet with them to talk about their particular inquiry.
They have established a toll-free line where anyone who wants to inquire about
the status of their report, to make that call and someone will be able to
provide them with some information and answer their questions.
Thus far, I think, Mr. Speaker, as of midday today, there have been some
thirty-six calls received from patients who have been inquiring about the
status. Most of them have, obviously, expressed some concern about their
individual circumstance, but we are very much appreciative of the fact that
Eastern Health came out so publicly and openly and shared the information, and
glad to be able to have the opportunity to call someone and actually talk to
them about their issue and have some questions answered.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the minister to do is to put
himself in the place of those patients who really do not know if they are
affected or not, and we are not just talking 3,500 people here, it could be
10,000 people. Anyone who ever had a test done by a radiologist at the Burin
Peninsula Health Centre does not know if they are being impacted or not.
I am asking you again: Will you order Eastern Health to contact all 3,500 so
that at least the others can be put out of misery?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, she is doing it again, and
I ask her please, on behalf of the people on the Burin Peninsula in this case,
not to be fearmongering. To take 3,500 patients that have been identified, and
we know that there are 3,500 patients, and to now somehow or other extrapolate
that into 10,000 people potentially impacted, that is totally irresponsible,
fearmongering, sending shock waves to the Burin Peninsula unnecessarily.
I say, Mr. Speaker, very clearly, the number here is very precise. We are
able to calculate and determine exactly who has been impacted. There is one
radiologist involved in this issue. We know the time that the person started to
work. We know the time that they stopped working on May 10. They have been
billing MCP for the procedures that they have done, so through a simple
mechanism we are able to identify each patient. We know the exact number and it
is not 10,000, and it is not close to it, I say, Mr. Speaker.
The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that the people on the Burin Peninsula -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people on the Burin Peninsula will not just have a number where they can
be called or have someone from Eastern Health call. What Eastern Health is in
the midst of doing right now is identifying a pool of radiologists to redo these
exams in a very timely fashion. In fact, they, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair asks all member of the House for their co-operation. The Chair
would ask the members answering questions, if they could keep their time
approximately to one minute, then we can get in all the questions that we
should.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yet again, the minister is trying to talk out and talk out and saying
absolutely nothing. The point here is that there are two radiologists at this
centre in Burin, two. One radiologist has been suspended, but nobody knows of
all the people who have had tests done at the Burin Peninsula Health Centre who
did what test. Unless these 3,500 people are contacted so that others can be put
at a fair - give it a time frame. Contact them within two weeks and if you do
not hear from anyone within two weeks then you do not have to worry. Minister,
there are more than 3,500 people affected here.
The minister said this review process could take from four to six weeks.
There are thousands of people who do not know today how they are affected. In
fact, the treatment they have received could very well have been based on a
wrong diagnosis.
I ask the minister: Will each of the 3,500 individuals be informed of the
outcome of the review of their file as it is completed, or will they have to
wait four to six weeks until all 6,000 are completed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, once again, the member opposite has got her
facts wrong. I did not say it will take four to five weeks. Eastern Health has
said it will take four to five weeks, but four to five weeks is not acceptable.
Four to five weeks is too long. This morning I have instructed Eastern Health to
ensure that these are all redone within a ten-day period. If it requires
bringing in -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: - radiologists from some other province, if it requires
taking these films and sending it out to another jurisdiction, whatever it takes
in terms of human resources, in terms of financial resources, I have directed
Eastern Health to have these exams done within a two-week period. Within that
two-week period, as the results come back, the referring physician who referred
the person for the exam in the first place will get a new report back, either
confirming the initial test results were as they were initially reported, or if
there is a change the new results will be reported. It will happen as the
results come back. We made a commitment that we will have them done within two
weeks because four to five weeks is not acceptable to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to hear the minister is telling Eastern Health what to do because
that means that you control Eastern Health.
Mr. Speaker, between the date that problems with the hormone receptor tests
were identified and the date that the retests were completed, some seventeen
months lapsed. Mr. Speaker, had Eastern Health or this government released the
information about these faulty tests upfront in May, 2005, some of the affected
individuals, or women, could have sought other tests elsewhere and arrange for
appropriate treatments elsewhere, whether that be inside of this country or
outside.
I ask the minister: Knowing that this was a possibility, why did you and your
predecessors decide to keep the information about the faulty testing secret?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct something. The members
opposite have been saying this for two or three days now. There was no attempt
here to withhold information. There was no attempt here to try to conceal
anything. There was no attempt to cover up anything. These are the words that
have been used over recent days and I want to ensure people in this House and
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is not what happened in this case
here at all.
Eastern Health's primary focus was ensuring that they had accurate tests,
and that is why they sent out some 900-and-some-odd tests to get redone. That
was their initial focus. As soon as they had the test results back their focus
was on ensuring that the patients knew and the patients all understood about
their individual tests.
In fact, members opposite sat in a presentation this past week. For two days
they had presentations. One of the slides that they were shown was very clearly
in October, 2005 - not eighteen months later, as you just suggested, but in
October, 2005. They indicated to you in recent days that they, in fact, made
contact with all of the patients who were impacted. Eastern Health's primary
focus was to ensure that those individuals who needed a change in their
treatment regime, they were contacted and that changed. Those individuals who
had -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, the Speaker asks the minister if he could keep his responses to
approximately a minute. This is the protocol we follow.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister himself is on record in the papers in this Province as saying
that the information was not released because of a threat of litigation.
Minister, you also said that all of these people affected by those tests - so it
is 900-and-some-odd individuals who were notified before October, 2005. That is
not the information we were provided by Eastern Health, I say to the minister,
and some of them were into the fall of 2006. Again, some of them were never
notified, I say to the minister. So, the information you just gave was not
completely true.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health admitted yesterday that he
did not seek legal advice from the Department of Justice as to whether the
results of the faulty hormone receptor tests should be made available to the
public. Instead, the only legal advice that Eastern Health and government
received came from a law firm representing the insurance company of Eastern
Health.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister has already stated that litigation
costs were balanced against health concerns. I ask the minister: Why would
government accept the legal opinion of a law firm who was working for an
insurance company, rather than seek the advice from your own Department of
Justice?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I need to put the member's
preamble into some
kind of context, because this is very important. Let me finish what I started to
say the first time.
I had indicated clearly to you, and you know very well, because you sat in
the room, as I understand, together with the rest of your colleagues, and
Eastern Health started to tell you, and told you, as I started to tell you a
minute ago, that in October 2005, not eighteen months after May, but in October
2005, they started to make contact with those patients whose tests had to be
sent outside of the Province. They started to tell those individuals whose test
results had come back that their treatment regime had to change.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: As the test results started to come back - and all of them
were back in February, so I do not know how you get eighteen months from May to
February, I really do not know, but that is not eighteen months.
Secondly, Eastern Health's focus was to ensure that the test results that
were done during that period 1997-2005 were, in fact, accurate. They made an
effort to ensure that they had good information to treat their patients. They
sent 900-and-some-odd test results out to be redone. As the information came
back, they started to inform patients.
Their primary focus was on informing patients so that their treatment would
not be compromised. Their primary focus was not in ensuring that the Opposition
knew. Their primary focus was not to ensure that the media knew -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair appreciates the great sensitivity of the questions, and the need to
have the answers, but we ask members for their co-operation.
The Chair passes the matter back to the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the Minister of Health as
to why the people of the Province were led to believe that all hormone receptor
testing for women affected by breast cancer was being done in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
As confirmed yesterday by Eastern Health, the only testing now being
completed in this Province is for patients in the Eastern Health region. Testing
for women in Labrador, Western and the Central region continues to be sent to
Mount Sinai Hospital in Ontario.
The minister later stated in the media that he was not aware of the
circumstance, and committed to investigating the reasons for this.
I ask the minister: Now that you have had the opportunity to investigate, why
are these tests being sent out of the Province and not being done in the Centre
of Excellence in St. John's?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the member again today. I did
not say all of the tests were done in this Province. I said the lab reopened in
February. I said the service recommenced in February. That is correct, the
facts. If you are going to ask questions, get your facts right.
Now, to get to the substance of your question, I said earlier in this House
that Eastern Health has created a Centre of Excellence within the Eastern Health
Authority. It is located at the Health Sciences Centre. It includes a team of
oncologists, radiologists and pathologists dealing with cancer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a process here. Let me explain it. I may have to
get into two shifts of questions to get my answer out, but it is an important
point.
Here is the issue: Prior to the whole issue surfacing in May 2005, what was
happening in this Province, the Eastern Health Authority, the tests that were
being performed within Eastern Health on behalf of those patients, they were
being done in St. John's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: What was happening was, the tests were performed here, the
pathologist was interpreting them and the pathologist was reporting them. All
the other three authorities were sending in their specimens for testing and
Eastern Heath were taking the tests, performing them, but sending them back to
the other three authorities for reporting and for
interpretation.
What is happening now, Mr. Speaker, -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, there are two facts. One, not all of the people
have been notified. The second fact was, in answer, it did speak to the women of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that includes Labrador, Central and
Western.
Mr. Speaker, we have been advised by some women who have been impacted by the
incorrect hormone receptor test results that they were not initially told that
the results were wrong. Instead, these individuals had the impression they were
part of a focus group or study looking into the results of breast cancer
testing.
I ask the minister: Is it true that these women whose test results were
inaccurate were not given the full details once it was discovered?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Before I get to that one, let me answer the first question
he posed.
As I was saying, the other three authorities were sending their tests into
Eastern Health Authority to have the test performed, and Eastern Health
Authority would send it back. The pathologists back in the other three regions
would interpret it and would report it to the physician.
What is now changing is, in the future, on a go-forward basis, all of the
tests from across the Province will come into Eastern Health. Eastern will not
only perform the tests, but the pathologists there will interpret it at the
Centre of Excellence and will report it back to the physician.
That transition, that shift, has not yet occurred. The lab only reopened in
February. The lab wants to be able to ensure that it is up to speed, it has made
that transition, and that some standards need to be put in place for the
transition of the specimens from the other regions.
That is the long answer to your very short question, but you need to
understand the facts. These, Mr. Speaker, are questions that are very technical
in nature in some cases. When you start asking pieces of a question, and only
taking pieces of an answer, and running with it in the media, as you have been
doing, you create a lot of unnecessary anxiety for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we talked about one of the reasons why
the tests were not all being done in the Centre of Excellence in St. John's
was because of a shortage of pathologists.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have a fair grasp on what the facts are, but the
minister also stated yesterday that compensation packages for pathologists were
being implemented, that they would make their salaries competitive with their
counterparts across the country. This compensation request has been before
government for two years, but only approved last week when the results of
inaccurate testing for breast cancer were made public.
I ask the minister: Knowing the challenges that exist in the Province as a
result of pathologist shortages, why did it take government over two years to
address this significant problem?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House in the last two or
three days that the issue of pathologists, the recruitment and supply of
pathologists in Newfoundland and Labrador, is not unique to this Province. Right
across this country, we have a shortage of pathologists in the entire country.
As a country, each and every province, as an entire country, we do not generate
enough pathologists to satisfy the demand in the country. In fact, even larger
provinces like Ontario - Ontario today, for example, Mr. Speaker, is
experiencing a major shortage in pathologists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: It is not unique to this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker. It is
not unique to this Province at all. We have had some real good success. I said
in this House the other day that we had some twenty-one positions at Eastern
Health. Unfortunately, we have had some turnover. In that same period we have
had thirty-six, I think it is - thirty-odd, or thirty-six, I think, is the
precise number - of pathologists filling those twenty-one positions, so we have
had some real good success in recruitment. We have some challenges in some of
the retention issues, but we have had some real good success in recruiting
capable, competent pathologists to provide services to the people of this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will continue from yesterday when I was attempting to get some answers to
my questions. While government may not like the questions, of course, it is very
important, the actual facts of what ministers knew about this inaccurate breast
testing debacle and what actions or inactions they had on this issue.
I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who was the former Minister
of Health during part of this time frame involving this matter: Did you, sir, at
any time consult or seek advice from the Department of Justice regarding the
inaccurate testing results?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, if you are not
going to listen to questions at least read Hansard from the day before, because
I answered that question perfectly clear yesterday. In fact, I think I answered
it about five times in five different ways and today we are getting the same
question. The answer I gave yesterday was very clearly, the Department of Health
and Community Services did not seek a legal opinion from Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer will show that my question was directed to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
My next question is for the current Minister of Justice, who was a former
Minister of Health for the longest period of time while this investigation was
ongoing, from March 2006 to January 2007. According to officials with Eastern
Health, the minister was given numerous briefings and updates about the
retesting results but the issue was never made public.
I ask the current Minister of Justice, former Minister of Health: Can you and
will you tell us, were you at any time or did you at any time consult with or
seek advice from the Department of Justice regarding this issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many more times I can answer
the same question in a different way. Let me try a different answer, Mr.
Speaker. Let's see if he can get this one. Regardless of who was the Minister
of Health and Community Services, the Department of Health and Community
Services did not seek a legal opinion from the Department of Justice on this
issue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a slightly different answer, maybe we will get
through this time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the record, I am not asking if the department asked. I am asking specific
persons who filled the role of minister.
My next question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the current Attorney General and a
former Acting Minister of Justice: Were you, sir, at any time consulted or
discussed or made any recommendations or provided any advice to government on
this particular issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, how any minister in this
House could answer a question that was never asked. As I have said before, Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Health and Community Services and the Ministers of
Health and Community Services did not seek a legal opinion from the Department
of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the current Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Justice: Were
you, sir, consulted or did you at any time discuss this issue or make any
recommendations or provide any advice to government regarding this issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: If I get asked this question any more I am just going to
replay it, because the answer is the same.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Ministers
of Health and Community Services have not asked the Department of Justice or the
Minister of Justice an opinion on this issue.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
My final question is for the Minister of Health.
Minister, did you at any time, when you became aware of this issue, advise or
seek advice or discuss this matter with the Premier, and if so, when?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: I discussed this issue, I think it was two weeks ago. I
cannot give you an exact date but it would have been about two weeks ago. This
issue was raised in the House of Assembly, I think it was one day last week. I
will get the exact date for you because I want to be precise in my answer, but
it was a very recent conversation that I did have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just one point of clarification, supplementary to that question. Can the
minister be more specific? And I will be more specific in my questioning. Did
you only discuss this issue with the Premier after it has now become a matter of
public record, or did you at any time, before this was discussed and raised in
this House of Assembly, discuss the issue with the Premier?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: This issue, Mr. Speaker, has been a public issue since
October, 2005. Anyone who has lived in this Province in 2005 would have been
very much aware of the media coverage of the issue in 2005; would have been very
much aware of the ads being placed by Eastern Health during 2005 asking people
to call a toll-free number to get in touch with them about their test results.
So, this has been a public issue for quite some time. In fact, I recall, since
about October, 2005, it was well publicized in the papers throughout this
Province. It has been a public issue for quite some time, I say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary to the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just, again, for clarification, because we do not get exactly straight
answers from this minister. I ask you again, minister - not whether this was a
public issue. I am asking you, before this matter arose in this Chamber in the
last week or two, did you discuss this issue, going back to when you became the
Minister of Health, at any time with the Premier? Now that is pretty
straightforward.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: I told you a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker. I gave the member
opposite an answer a moment ago. Rather than giving an approximate date, I will
just check my notes and I will tell you exactly when I had the discussion with
him. I will get that for you and let you know, but it was in the recent past
that I had the discussion.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
On Tuesday, the minister announced that there was a tremendous compensation
package now in place for pathologists; a package, I would like to note, that
only arrived officially this morning at the offices of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that this compensation package is on
a par with Atlantic Canada, however, evidence here is that the pathologists that
the labs are losing, especially the lab in Eastern Health, the pathologists are
going to Ontario. I am sure the minister must realize that the Province is
competing with the whole of Canada, not just with Atlantic Canada.
Why then is the government not making a real investment in our system to keep
medical specialists in the Province by making the stipends competitive
nationally, not just with Atlantic Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, across this country, not just today, not
yesterday, but for years and years now, across this entire country there are
health professionals, there are educators, there are many other disciplines
where there are great differences, great variances in compensation packages;
whether it is the salary piece or the benefit piece, but there are great
variances across this country. We have always attempted to make sure that we are
competitive, particularly with Atlantic Canada. We may not always have the same
kind of financial resources that some other richer provinces may have, but we
have always attempted - in fact, since we formed government we have always tried
to ensure that the compensation package, the total compensation package that we
provide to people who work in public service in this Province, is provided with
a competitive package that makes us competitive with, particularly Atlantic
provinces. In some cases we are competitive on a national scale, but we will not
have, I say, Mr. Speaker - it is going to be very challenging for a Province
like Newfoundland and Labrador to always be able to say we have the best
compensation package of any jurisdiction in the country. In fact, we will
frequently be challenged to say that we have a compensation package that is
equal to the best in the country, so we will always try to be competitive within
the fiscal capacity that we have as a Province.
We believe that the recent announcement of what we are providing to
pathologists, because it is consistent with what we are doing for oncologists in
the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, the Speaker is trying to keep the responses and questions to within a
minute
The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to speak practically. You know, the tremendous package the
minister is talking about, and I admit it looks like a good package in
comparison to what is there now, it brings the salary of pathologists to a
maximum of $241,000. The four residents who are now leaving Newfoundland and
going to Ontario, they are going to be starting at $330,000. That is a
difference of $89,000.
How does the tremendous package make us competitive with the lowest paid
pathologists in Ontario?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the very common problems when you start
making some comparisons of salaries is just that whole issue, the use of the
terminology.
One of the things we need to be very careful of, when we talk salaries, it is
actually what you get on your paycheque. When you start looking at the benefits,
there might be educational leave allowances in there, there might be
opportunities for continuing medical education, and whether or not we are paying
for their medical malpractice insurance. All of those things become a part of
the benefit package. So, when you are looking at a total compensation package,
you have to incorporate all of those in making you comparisons.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in living in Newfoundland
and Labrador. We would like to think that there are some advantages to living in
this Province. There are some very big issues with respect to lifestyle, a place
to raise a family, the cost of living here relative to what it might be in
downtown Toronto, so you have to look at the market you are competing in, I say,
Mr. Speaker.
She used the term, practically speaking. Well, you do have to look at this
from a very practical perspective and not just look at the salary piece when you
are making a comparison.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that on tomorrow,
Monday, May 28, this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and not adjourn at 10:00
p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to present another petition. I will not read the prayer of the
petition because it is similar to what I presented last week and was passed by
the officials at the House here with regard to general practioners, a shortage
of general practitioners, I guess throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, but I
speak in particular to the Conception Bay North area and in the Port de Grave
district area.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, there are several local clinics there but
many people in that particular area do not, at this present time, have a general
practitioner at all. There are many other people who have to travel to St. John's
or to Mount Pearl to see doctors who were in that area at one particular time
and now they have to move here to the city to see them on a regular basis.
I guess the biggest concern that people are having there now, the word is out
that two other general practitioners will be leaving that area some time this
summer, Mr. Speaker, and that is going to create a tremendous backlog of people
who will not have a general practitioner.
The main problem with it, Mr. Speaker, is this: Once people do not have a
general practitioner and they call the clinics trying to get in to see somebody,
they are referred to the emergency unit at Carbonear Hospital. This is where the
problem is created. Many people go to the unit at Carbonear and the staff there,
at the present time, even with emergencies, their workload is tremendous, Mr.
Speaker, and a lot of stress is added to them, but when you have people coming
in who - everyone who goes to a doctor thinks that their situation is an
emergency. Many people are going to the emergency units who should be dealt with
by their general practitioners, but unfortunately they do not have any.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are many other health issues in our particular area
of major concern. We know full well that the long-term care facility - we have
been told, or I was told during Estimates - this issue is being reviewed again.
However, we know back about four years ago that the Conception Bay North area
was number one on a priority list for a long-term care facility. We also know
that the Alzheimer's unit was closed out last year at the Harbour Lodge in
Carbonear. I asked questions, if there was any possibility of that returning. I
was told that this would be reviewed and probably all put together when a new
long-term care facility would be brought to the area; but, Mr. Speaker, the main
issue and the main concern that people have today is the shortage of general
practitioners in that area.
I call upon the minister and the government, and urge the government to take
a serious look; because, by having a shortage of general practitioners in the
local clinics, there is added stress and burdens placed on other staff who work
at the hospital in Carbonear - and not only in Carbonear; the same is here at
the hospitals in St. John's. So, I call upon the minister once again to put
into place a plan for the retention of local doctors.
I was told during the Estimates meeting that what we do now, like, if someone
is training to be a doctor, if they have two years of student loans, they are
compelled to stay here in the Province for two years. I believe the government
should look at a plan to make sure our local gentlemen, men and women, who are
training to be general practitioners, there should be a plan in place that they
would be more or less given a good package that they can stay here in the
Province for a longer period of time and that would alleviate the burdens placed
on the emergency units in our hospitals.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Furthers petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 10. I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the
House not adjourn today, May 24, at 5:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House
of Assembly not adjourn today, Thursday, May 24, at 5:30 o'clock
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 11. I would like to further move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that
the House not adjourn today, May 24, at 10:00 o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House
of Assembly not adjourn today, Thursday, May 24, at 10:00 p.m.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 4. I move that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board
have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax
Act. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act," carried.
(Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20,
An Act To Amend The
Retail Sales Tax Act, be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 20 be read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20,
An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, has now
been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, motion 5, I ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House
Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 21)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader
shall have leave to introduce the said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991, has now
been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Minister of Municipal Affairs
have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Taxation Of
Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 22)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal
Affairs shall have leave to introduce the said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies
Act," carried. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this bill be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the bill be now read
a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable
Television Companies Act. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22,
An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable
Television Companies Act, has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Government
Services have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Highway
Traffic Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 23)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Government Services
shall have leave to introduce Bill 23?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," carried. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 23 be read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 23 be read a second time?
MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Motion 8, that the Minister of Education have
leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill
24)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Schools Act, 1997.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Education shall
have leave to introduce Bill 24?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act
To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 24 be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24,
An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997, has now been
read a first time.
When shall Bill 24 be read a second time?
MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would now like to move to Order 9 in Orders of the Day, second reading of a
bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8 be now read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights
Code." (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 8,
An Act To Amend The Human
Rights Code.
Mr. Speaker, over the last decade the appropriateness of mandatory retirement
has increasingly been questioned. Many other Canadian provinces have or are
planning to abolish mandatory retirement. To facilitate this movement in the law
and policy, on May 26, 2006 the Human Rights Code was amended to eliminate age
discrimination in employment for the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who
are sixty-five years of age or older. Employees are now able to choose for
themselves how long they wish to remain in the workforce, so long as they are
capable of performing their jobs. Workers will be given the option to choose
their own retirement date based upon lifestyle, circumstances and priorities and
will not be required to retire based upon an arbitrary number. This important
change makes sense, as it promotes the dignity and sense of self worth of older
employees.
The amendment to the code that was passed last spring was suspended until May
26, 2007, to allow persons and organizations the opportunity to review their
practices and policies, and take whatever action is believed necessary to
facilitate the cessation of mandatory retirement. As a result, the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador conducted an extensive review of its policies,
procedures, pension plans, insurance benefits and agreements in preparation of
abolishing mandatory retirement.
During our review,
section 95(
a) of the Human Rights Code was determined to
be problematic in two ways. Firstly, this
section has been interpreted as
possibly permitting a continuation of practice of mandatory retirement in the
private and public sector so long as an employer has a good faith retirement or
pension plan which requires retirement at a certain age. To continue to allow
mandatory retirement at a fixed age based upon a good faith pension plan would
be contrary to the policy decision of this government and the House to eliminate
mandatory retirement. In other words, if this provision was permitted to remain
as currently worded, there would potentially be a major loophole in the code
permitting the continued practice of mandatory retirement. Secondly, discussions
with the legal counsel have indicated that this
section as currently drafted may
not survive the scrutiny of a charter challenge.
In order to address these two problems, I propose the adoption of the
amendment contained in this bill. This bill will disallow termination of
employment based on the terms or conditions of a good faith retirement or
pension plan. In other words, mandatory retirement will no longer be permissible
because of a pension plan or retirement plan requiring cessation of employment
at a particular age. This change, I note, is consistent with the policy
direction of this government.
Section 95(
a) would continue in force to allow age
distinctions or differentials to be drawn to accommodate the actuarial
requirements of pension plans.
Mr. Speaker, it has been determined that mandatory retirement is no longer
appropriate for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The present amendment
to the code facilities the May 2006 amendment and removes any uncertainty as to
the relationship between mandatory retirement and the pensions plans.
This bill promotes consistent government policy and removes uncertainty in
the code. It allows age differentials to remain, which are necessary for the
operation of pension plans.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this bill, and I
encourage all hon. members in the House to support this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in second reading here of
Bill 8. Of course, second reading is an opportunity where the minister gives us
an overview of what the legislation is about and what it is intended for. I am
not quite sure, from listening to him, if he has a detailed and substantive
grasp of what he read, but that is another issue.
I would say to the minister, first of all, with regard to the issue itself of
mandatory retirement at age sixty-five, it is not only a matter of dignity and
self-worth of the employee; in our society today it is an absolute necessity. We
have all kinds of reports coming out of other parts of the country, at least,
that to insist upon someone retiring at age sixty-five is certainly a detriment
to our booming economy - or their booming economy out there, I should say. That
is one good reason.
I am sure the Speaker himself, of course, he might be leaving politics but I
do not see our Speaker going off to pasture any time soon. I would think he is
probably going to want to keep his brain engaged and pursue some other things,
so it is an absolute necessity, actually, in our environment today, and economy,
to have this.
I would like to ask the minister, and I am sure he will get an opportunity,
too, when he gets up in the detailed piece of this, I would like to know -
because we passed the piece last May regarding taking it out as a mandatory age,
and we allowed a one year period to do the consultation with the various sectors
- I would like to know some detail as to who exactly the minister or the
department consulted with during that period or who, for example - the officials
in Finance, I would think, would have probably been the people who did the
consultation as opposed to Justice itself. So, I am just wondering if maybe one
of the ministers can clue us in as to who was consulted, what was the nature of
that consultation, and what was required to be done in order to get us to this
point today, because we made the amendment back in May 2006 and gave a year for
certain things to be done so that we would be in a position this year to move
ahead. I am just curious, and I am sure the people in the public might like to
know, well, what happened in that one year period.
We have three bills. We have the Human Rights bill, and we have the next two,
for example, under the pensions act, that are involved here, so maybe some
detail in that regard so at least if we are going to be dealing with these three
bills today, as I understand it, we would have set the scene now when we are
having this discussion and we would know, for the whole afternoon at least, what
those consultations were involved with.
I would also appreciate it if the minister could give me some understanding
of, what is a good faith pension plan? We are dealing with a piece of
legislation here. I would like to know, and I am sure people in the public would
like to know. I know what we are doing here. We are saying, under the Human
Rights Code, that in the future you cannot say, in an employment contract, I
gather, or in a pension plan, that a person must retire at a certain age, a
mandatory retirement age, because that would then be grounds of discrimination.
Take it a step further: maybe some explanation as to what is a good faith
pension plan versus any other kind of pension plan? Is there some distinction we
are making here between what is done in good faith and what is another kind of
pension plan? Some explanation from the minister when we get to that stage would
be much appreciated.
I would like to try to understand, of course, if we are going to be voting on
something here. I cannot say at this point - I assume I have no problem with it,
but I would like to be as informed as possible, and I find these second readings
and committee stages a great time - for anything I do not understand - an
opportunity to educate myself, so I would certainly appreciate some explanation
of that.
I notice, as well, and I have to say this in all seriousness, the minister
stands up with his written notes and talks about he has had legal advice as to
this issue might not survive a charter challenge. It is nice to see that at
least he got some legal advice on this issue, because we have another very
important issue going on in this Province - raging, actually, in the public
domain - and that is the issue of the breast cancer screening debacle. We
certainly never had this minister up here today, or any other time,
acknowledging that he had anything to do, or sought any advice on that issue,
but we get it here in a case of the Human Rights Code.
The minister is on his feet when it comes to making this amendment to Human
Rights, but he is not so apt to get on his feet when it came to Question Period,
and he had a direct question put to him, to get up and give an answer to the
people of this Province. I see something dramatically wrong with that. I see
something drastically wrong with that. I think, actually, there was an
obligation to get up and explain it, because you do not want to leave people -
sometimes, they say, it is what you don't say that is as telling as when you
do say something.
I would appreciate, actually, knowing if the minister can tell us who he got
that advice from, why this might not survive a charter challenge. Has it been
challenged anywhere else? Was this non-discrimination, or putting this in our
Human Right Code, taking it out, as a discriminatory piece? Has this been
challenged anywhere? I would like some further details on that type of
information before we - or at least I - get to a point of having to vote on
this.
Given that we are only talking about a couple of sections here, normally in
second reading you deal with the generalities and in Committee you deal with the
specifics of each clause. Really, we only have two clauses here that are very
much the same. I guess the questions that I ask now will be the same questions
that I would ask in the Committee stage.
That is all I have to say at this point. I cannot say whether I am or am not
in favour of it. I would like to have this further information, and I would like
to be further educated by the minister. I look forward to listening to the
comments of other members to see what they have to add to this piece of
legislation and we will see where it goes after that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Continuing debate at second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Justice, if he speaks now, will close debate at
second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was not sure if other members wanted to have some input on this, but
obviously not.
I will endeavour to find out what the legal advice surrounding the survival
of a challenge to the charter on this is, for the member opposite, and what
consultations were done by the department over the past year.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 8,
An Act To Amend
The Human Rights Code, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8,
An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, has now been
read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Right Code," read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to move second reading of Order 12, a bill,
An Act To Amend The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16,
An Act To Amend The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service
Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services
Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure to rise in my place today to speak to this legislation,
Bill 16,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers'
Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall, that a year ago this House amended the
Human Rights Code to include age as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. That
meant, Mr. Speaker, that it was no longer possible to say to somebody, to say to
a senior that that person had to retire, had to mandatorily retire from their
position, solely on the basis that they had reached a certain age. It is now
discriminatory to do that, Mr. Speaker. The effect of that is that we have
effectively eliminated mandatory retirement. Because of that legislation, which
will come into effect in May of this year, in a couple of days, because of the
major change in the law brought about by the amendment last May, we gave the
people of this Province, we gave the employers in this Province a year to get
their affairs in order so that they could be ready for when this legislation
came into effect. Government, of course, is an employer and government has now
to amend its legislation to comply with the Human Rights Code as well, as we now
implement the end of discrimination against people on the basis of their age.
Three of the government's pension plans contain provisions directing that
employees shall retire once a certain age has been reached. It is necessary for
us today to amend those three pieces of legislation, the Public Service Pensions
Act, The Teachers' Pensions Act and the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, to
amend the clauses in the three pieces of legislation that people are required to
retire at a particular age, to eliminate mandatory retirement from our pension
legislation, and to enable government employees to continue to accrue pension
credits and make contributions matched by their employer until the earlier of
the date that their employment is actually terminated, because they have
terminated their employment, or the year that they attain the age of seventy-one
- because under the Income Tax Act of Canada any registered pension, and these
are registered pensions, you have to draw down the monies under the pensions in
the year in which you turn seventy-one. That is a recent change that took place
in the federal budget. Prior the that, the age of sixty-nine. So it was recently
There is also a policy change - I will just check my notes here, Mr. Speaker.
As a result of the changes, as I said earlier, employees who participate in our
Public Service Pension Plans and who decide to work beyond the age of sixty-five
will now be allowed to continue to contribute to their pension plans and to earn
additional pension credits. Similarly, teachers under the Teachers' Pension
Plan, and correctional officers and police officers under the Uniformed Services
Pensions Plan will - if they choose to continue working beyond age sixty - be
able to continue to participate in their pension plans, they will be able to
continue to work and they will be able to continue to contribute to their plans
and, therefore, receive enhanced benefits when they retire.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there have been employees who have exceeded the age of
sixty-five and who have not retired, but they have continued to work, and they
will continue to do so up to a couple of days. When those employees did, in
fact, continue to work, they signed an acknowledgment or an agreement with
government acknowledging that they would not be able to continue to contribute
to their pension plan. What this legislation does, it now recognizes the fact
that mandatory retirement has been eliminated and it gives the same benefits to
these employees. It gives them the opportunity now to contribute to their
pension plan and continue to enhance their pension plan for that period of time
when they could have retired but continued to work, up until May 26 of this
year.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. T. MARSHALL: They will buy their contributions, but it will be the
same as if they had been contributing all along.
The explanation notes in the bill pretty well sums this all up. As I say, the
second paragraph says: The bill will additionally provide that current employees
who have already reached normal retirement age before May 26, but who have
continued in employment, they would be permitted to receive pensionable credit
for services after their normal retirement age, subject to the terms and
conditions of a ministerial directive.
Finally, the bill will also remove the thirty-seven-and-a-half year
limitation on pensionable service and the 75 per cent of pensionable earnings
limitation contained in the Uniformed Services Pension Act, 1991. Now that there
is no mandatory retirement, there is no necessity to put a limit on either of
these things.
There is a final amendment in here, Mr. Speaker, which allows someone who may
have retired to enable them to come back to work. If they have retired and are
on pension now, if they are under the age of seventy-one, the magic age set out
in the Income Tax Act, if they wish to come back to work they can. Their
pensions, of course, would be suspended but of course while they are working
they can continue to accumulate additional pension benefits.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I would urge passage of Bill 16 so that our
correctional officers, our police officers, our teachers and our public servants
will no longer be discriminated against in their pension legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
[Technical difficulties]
MS THISTLE: The minister made note that people now really do not have to
retire until they are eligible for a pension under the Income Tax Act, which is
age seventy-one.
Now, there is
section in this bill and it is
section 16.(1)(b). I am kind of
curious about that section. This
section talks to the fact that, "...after
the employee has used up all sick leave entitlement, he or she is unable to
preform efficiently the duties of his or her position or the duties of an
alternative position owing to incapacity that is medically certified to the
satisfaction of the minister...".
I have always questioned that one because it gives the - minister, that is
section 16.(1)(b), subsection 2. That always gives the power to the minister to
make a final determination whether or not an employee who is medically
incapacitated will face termination. So, I do not know, I think that should be
relegated to some type of a board, a neutral board that would be entirely
separate from the powers of the minister, someone who would look over the
employee's complete work history and medical history rather than the onus of
that being given to the minister to make a final determination. That might be
something that the minister can take under review, because there are lots of
powers being a minister of a certain department, and every department has
certain powers that rest entirely on the minister's shoulders, but when it
comes to actually terminating the employment of an employee who has been on the
job all their working career and has found themselves in a medical situation, a
sickness, and they have used up all their sick leave and whatever, and all
options are closing off, I think it would be better to hand a situation like
that over to a neutral panel rather than that sit on the minister's desks and
the minister say yea or nay, that person has no further recourse in their
government position.
I also wondered, Mr. Minister, whether or not the workers' compensation act
would apply to people over the age of sixty-five. There has been some talk that
the workers' compensation act may not be in effect once people reach the age
of sixty-five. Now, this has been a concern, particularly in the private
workplace, whether or not any business out there has the obligation to provide
workers' compensation insurance to their employees, and whether or not that
will be a part of the provincial government package for their employees.
The minister did say, when he was giving his introduction of the bill, that
once a government employee who is in receipt of a pension plans to return to
work, if they are under the age of seventy-one, their pension will be suspended
and they will go on a normal salary.
I wonder, for those persons, those civil servants, who are already in receipt
of a pension, and they decide to come back and work for the provincial
government - and I know that their pension is suspended - will they have the
opportunity then to continue to contribute and increase their pension from what
it was when they retired?
I notice that there is going to be no limitation that is set out with this
bill now. At one point, civil servants were not able to collect any more than 75
per cent of their working salary once they retired. After this comes into
effect, which will actually be Saturday of this week, May 26, civil servants now
who come back to work, the sky is the limit. So, if you have been one of those
civil servants who retired and you are tired of doing what you are doing,
watching the House of Assembly every day and going for a walk, you can now apply
for a job within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and you can continue
to contribute to a pension fund and you can spice up your pension fund when you
retire for the second time. That is what it is all about.
Now, I do believe that there are probably too many retired people,
particularly ex-politicians who are retired from the House of Assembly and they
are now holding down big jobs within government. Of course, we are trying hard,
or the government are supposedly trying hard, to entice young people to stay in
this Province. I really do think that, particularly for politicians, they should
not be permitted to come back into the workforce for the provincial government
and start contributing again to a pension fund and have a jazzed up pension fund
again when they retire for the second time. I believe there should be exemptions
in those cases.
Now, a poor civil servant who probably retired on a small pension, who had
worked for years under a small salary, and if it is deemed that the government
cannot find a suitable candidate to fill a certain job, and they look at someone
who has worked in the past for government, that is a different matter; but,
someone who retires as being a Cabinet minister, and an MHA, and had probably
twenty years in the House of Assembly, and they are going to collect a pension
anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000, you would not be giving first preference for
a job in government to those kinds of people, I do not think.
Mr. Speaker, I have looked over this bill and I know that, when you look at
the aging population that we have right across our country, I can see why it is
necessary to look at keeping people in the workforce, if they want; it is
entirely at their own will. People still have the same benefits of retirement
that they would have, and that is a package that is generated, particularly in
this one - this is a government package that is negotiated and the terms are set
out right from the start.
One part of this is that the bill is going to remove the magic age, magic
years of service, which was always thirty-seven-and-a-half years, and also the
magic pensionable earnings limitation. That was always 75 per cent of your
salary.
I do not know if, by any chance, somebody could ever get to beyond 100 per
cent. Is that a possibility, Mr. Finance Minister, that someone who comes back
to work for government for the second time, on a different salary level,
naturally, could ever get to the point - I am sure that could happen - when that
person could actually make beyond 100 per cent of their initial salary? They
certainly could, so I guess the sky is the limit. The contributions will be
equal. There will be no change in the contributions from the government side or
the employee side. They will have an advantage of working for the second time
and increasing their pension.
There is one other
section and it says, "The Bill would additionally
provide that current employees who reached normal retirement age before May 26,
2007..." - that is this Saturday - "...but who have continued in
employment would be permitted to receive pensionable credit for service after
normal retirement age...".
That is something new, because there are people now who are qualified for
retirement - I know several of them - within government who are currently
qualified for retirement, and they will be by this Saturday, May 26. Now, as of
May 26 or May 27, they are going to be permitted to work on and they are going
to receive pensionable credit for service after that magic age of sixty-five
years.
directive." That power again belongs on the shoulders of the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board. Is that saying to that particular
directive to the Minister of Finance?
I think if we are going to get involved in a retirement policy, or no
retirement policy, up to age seventy-one, I think we need to look at - there are
going to be a lot of things facing us when we have people over the age of
sixty-five who want to stay in the workplace. Who will determine if a person
over the age of sixty-five cannot keep up with the pace of their workload? Who
will determine if a person over the age of sixty-five - maybe they are in a job
where they are expected to do a lot of work, travel on the highway, do a lot of
field trips. Who will determine if that person is not keeping pace with the
other people in their workplace? Are there any provisions then for that person?
Will they have to face the same penalties in their workplace as an ordinary
person under the age of sixty-five? What happens if they have an illness that is
particularly to people over sixty-five? It could be age macular disease, it
could be Alzheimer's, it could be any number of age-related diseases. Who will
determine whether or not they are fulfilling their role in their active day job
with the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?
The reason I am asking these questions is because the explanatory notes on
this bill, these two sections gives all that power to the minister's
prerogative. Now the minister might say: I do not believe that guy out there can
do a day's work, a good day's work for a good day's pay. You know, he is
seventy years old and he is trotting in here in the morning and I do not believe
we are getting value for our money, you know $120,000 we are paying that
individual. It will be up to the minister at that point to say if that employee
stays on or not. So, there is a lot of power left to the minister. The minister
can decide if somebody is going to be terminated due to medical benefits running
someone over sixty-five. So, there is a lot left up to the minister.
Now, I know that employment is the number one concern for the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a recent survey done by government, just a
few weeks ago, and out of all the questions that were asked all over the
Province, it is interesting - of course, that was before this health care issue
came up there ten days ago, but out of all the questions that were on resident's
minds in this Province, the number one issue was jobs.
I looked at the make up of the population in this Province, and it is
interesting that we are going to be appealing - by this new legislation that is
coming here today, we are appealing to the people who are currently over fifty
years of age and are considering their futures, whether it be retirement of
extended career. The people over fifty currently in our Province numbers 180,000
people.
The Premier said recently that he is going to have a job fair, and I think it
is taking place the first week in June. For the people in our Province who are
over fifty, there are 180,000 of them. One hundred-and-eighty-thousand people
are now over fifty years old. Now, within our provincial government, within our
civil service, there is usually between - it depends on part-timers who work in
the summertime and full-time people - sometimes it can go up to as high as
40,000 employees within the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Currently, the average age for our civil servants, our public servants in
this Province is forty-nine years. Forty-nine years is the current age in our
civil service here in this Province. The average age is forty-nine years. All of
those people now will be considering: Will I continue to work on, work past
sixty-five and boost up my pension or will I retire? So, it is another option
that is out there for people who may have started off on a small salary and now
that they have a chance to increase their pension - and people are living
longer, lifestyles have changed. You are going to see a lot of empty nesters in
their late fifties who probably might consider continuing to work.
I did not see anything in this bill for an option for part-time work, because
there will be a lot of people over age sixty-five wanting part-time work. They
do not want to be committed to nine to five or eight to four, but there will be
another situation when - you know, there has to be a lot of wisdom out there, a
lot of resources, a lot of talent built up in the job pool of people aged
sixty-five that government can draw on and private industry can draw on.
What has not been addressed in this bill - and I guess the minister might
consider it at a later date because this is all brand new, but I think he needs
to strike a panel to look at the medical issues of employees over the age of
sixty-five. He also needs to look into the issue of part-time employment and
what the benefits might be, because you are going to see a lot of people over
the age of sixty-five who might like to come to work on a part-time basis for
consulting work or whatever. They have lots of knowledge and lots of talent to
give to government.
I think the minister should strike some kind of a committee made up of
current retired civil servants or those already in the workplace and continuing
on to work beyond sixty-five because there is going to be a whole new set of
issues that are going to come up for people who are working beyond sixty-five.
In fact, you are going to have to look at our medical health plan as well. There
are going to be issues coming up for people beyond sixty-five in the workplace
who you would not even consider at this point today. There are also things like
insurance, medications, travel. There is going to be a lot of - insuring people
while they are travelling outside of the country on government work and they are
passed sixty-five years old. There are so many issues concerning people over
sixty-five. I do think it is a good idea to be able to work beyond sixty-five,
if you wish to do that. I think what we are going to discover as we go along,
there will be issues that we are not even contemplating today that will be
necessary to address.
I do not know what is out there for private enterprise, whether or not they
will be under the same guidelines as government when it comes to providing - the
biggest issue for private enterprise is trying to provide health insurance for
people beyond sixty-five. It is going to be a very costly venture for private
enterprise to provide health insurance. Also, people beyond sixty-five,
depending on the jobs they are in, might have more accidents if they are in
situations where they have to be totally alert and so on. That is a known fact.
So, for private enterprise in particular, health benefits are going to be
very expensive. Will they be able to receive Workers' Compensation in the
act, but I am sure there are lots of people out there wondering, how will it
pertain to them in private enterprise?
I am in agreement with the act, but I would like for the minister, if he
would, to answer some of the questions I have raised and we will take it from
there.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans for her comments here
today. She raised a number of very interesting issues. I think what is important
today is to note that we are talking about specific pension legislation. It is
about pensions we are dealing with here. We are trying to end discrimination
against our seniors. We have brought in legislation effectively ending mandatory
retirement, so we want to remove all of these discriminatory provisions from the
three pension legislations that affect the government employees, the teachers,
the correction officers and police officers.
Many of these issues will come up again when we talk about employment, when
we talk about the attraction initiatives that the government must initiate to
attract more employees, to retain more employees. I know we will be back here on
the floor of this House dealing with those issues, such as health insurance,
such as part-time workers and so on.
We are talking about pensions here. The hon. member did ask the question - I
will deal with some of the questions she has asked - Can an employee who is out
on a pension now, who returns to work, can they have their pension suspended,
and while they are working continue to contribute to the pension plan, continue
to rack up benefits under that pension plan? The answer to that is yes, that
would only be fair and proper.
The hon. member did express concern about politicians coming back,
politicians who are out on some fat pensions, and whether they would have the
right to come back. I would just like to point out to everybody that we are
amending three pieces of legislation, we are not amending the MHA pensions act.
So, I think the answer to your question is no. I agree with the hon. member;
that is good.
Mr. Speaker, in continuing, the hon. member also referred to
section
16.(1)(
b) of the legislation which talks about an employee shall be retired
under a pension plan where, after the employee has used up all their sick leave
benefits, he or she is unable to perform efficiently the duties of his or her
position, or the duties of any alternate position, owing to incapacity because
of a medical condition certified to the satisfaction of the minister is likely
to be permanent from the date determined by the minister.
I just want to point out that this is not a new section, that this is the
same section. We have not amended it, but I certainly will take under advisement
the recommendation of the member that maybe this should go, as she said, to a
neutral panel or for someone to rethink and take a look at this. I will be happy
to do that.
With respect to the workers' compensation act, I will endeavour to get the
answer to that question. I think the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment, who is the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation
Commission in this House, might be the more appropriate person to deal with
that, and I will ask him to do so.
I thank hon. members for their comments today. I thank the hon. Member for
Grand Falls-Buchans. This is an important piece of legislation. It is going to
end discrimination against our seniors, and we are all in favour of that. This
particular legislation will end discrimination against our seniors in government
pension legislation, and I urge all members to vote in favour of this
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 16,
An Act To
Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And
The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The
Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill
16)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a second time.
When shall Bill 16 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,
1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act,
1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to call Order 15, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15,
An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits
Act, 1997." (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, because the Human Rights Code will be amended to
eliminate mandatory retirement at age sixty-five, effective May 26, 2007, the
Pension Benefits Act, 1997, needs to be amended to comply with the Human Rights
Code.
While at a minimum pension plan sponsors will be required to permit members
to continue to make contributions and to accrue benefits beyond age sixty-five,
they will be permitted to provide other options for employees to choose from.
These options provide employers with greater flexibility, given that individual
owners and members may have different needs. However, if the employer does
provide options, the employee should have the right to choose which option suits
his or her needs best.
This amendment is especially beneficial to someone who may not have worked
enough time with their employer to receive their pension by age sixty-five. By
eliminating the mandatory retirement age, those people who do not have enough
service can continue working until they feel they are in a position to retire.
These amendments will be cost-neutral to pension plans and will therefore have
no impact on their financial stability.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to stand and respond to Bill 15,
An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997. This is an important bill. I would think that it is
falling in line with what the federal government is now doing, and also the
Province.
By this bill here, I would like to ask the minister: Is government now going
to take into consideration the transfer of new pension plans into the
government, if it would make it easier for private plans to now be transferred
to government plans? I wonder, is she going to expand now the current list of
acceptable pensions that government now accepts from employers across the
country, and expand that list so that we can look at private pensions being
transferred? Because now there is an arrangement that many people have an
option, who are working for governments outside of this Province, to transfer in
their pensions to our Province, and there are also opportunities for private
employers who have been recognized by this government to transfer their pensions
with an arrangement from one province to another, but there are lots of
companies out there today that are unable to do so.
In fact, about three years ago I had a request from an employee of a
government plan in Ontario that did not have a reciprocal agreement with this
Province, and yet his wife wanted to work in our Province. She was a teacher.
She could have her plan transferred by way of a reciprocal agreement, but I
think this person was probably - I cannot remember his line of work, but it was
at a recognized business that was nationwide, and did not have an opportunity,
through a reciprocal agreement with this Province, to transfer his pension. I
don't know if the minister now, by amending the Pension Benefits Act today, is
going to expand on that reciprocal agreement clause.
I would also like to ask the minister as well: Now, since that retirement age
is not mandatory at sixty-five - she is saying there in the explanatory notes,
"The proposed new
section would also allow pension plans to provide various
options to members working beyond age sixty-five..." Options: Now, is that
options that would have to be approved by the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador to be recognized as a safe place to put your money?
I know that the Minister of Government Services, a part of her mandate is to
ensure that people who are paying into pension plans are doing so within the
regulations and guidelines of the Province. With this new bill here, we are
going to see that members who work beyond age sixty-five will now have the
option to cease contributing to the plan at age sixty-five and to received an
increased pension on retirement or to commence receiving a pension at age
sixty-five while continuing to work. Now, this is something brand new. What that
means is that - say, for instance, somebody worked at Wal-Mart and they reached
age sixty-five and they had a pension from Wal-Mart, and then within a month or
two they decided to go to work for Tim Horton's, just as an example. They now
have a new salary from Tim Horton's and they are going to be able to receive
their former pension from Wal-Mart. That is what I am reading into this bill.
Because you want to work at another job after age sixty-five, you can still
receive a pension that you had from a former employer. That is what I am reading
into this bill.
That is still a good option for people who reach retirement age because no
employer now can discriminate after this and require that you cease employment
at age sixty-five. If it is the choice of an individual that they want to
retire, they can at sixty-five and then within a week or two or two or three
years later, if they decide to take a new job, well then they can hold on and
receive their former pension while they are working in the new job. That is what
this bill is about.
That is a benefit because most people, prior to this bill and prior to
federal government making their changes, would retire at age sixty-five, would
take their pension, whatever it was, and that was it. Now they have an option,
even through the private employer, where they can retire from one job, go to
work in the next job. It will be strictly up to the employee and the new
employer as to what kind of a retirement package is offered to the new employee.
An employee coming to work for the second time can still maintain and hold on to
and receive a pension from a former employer. There are many options out there
in the private workplace and there are also options in the government workplace.
This outlines what a person can do in private enterprise. What that means is
that you can reach age sixty-five, take a pension from one employer, go to the
next employer, get a salary and work on the next pension.
I do not have any problem with that particular bill, but I would like for the
minister, if she could, just to answer the couple of questions that I asked.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now,
she will close debate at second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the
participation. I think one of the things she asked about was the options, and
there are two specific options that are included in the legislation. One is for
the employee to receive a pension while continuing to work. Another is to cease
making contributions and receive an increased pension at a later date. The plan
sponsors may provide other options to the employees subject to the approval of
the superintendent of pensions.
So, I thank my hon. colleagues for their participation and I move second
reading of the bill.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 15,
An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second
time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15,
An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, has
now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Your Honour.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act,
1997," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would now like to call Order 4, which is second reading of a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5,
An Act To Amend The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service
Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased today to introduce another amendment to the Public Service
Pensions Act. This amendment will eliminate the requirement that government pay
$60 million annually into the Public Service Pension Plan for the purposes of
addressing the unfunded liability of the plan.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall, earlier this year I announced, on
behalf of government, that government would make a contribution to the Public
Service Pension Plan of $982 million. Now this money would be invested in the
plan no later than June of this year, June 30 of this year, to address the
unfunded pension liability. To date, $400 million has been paid into that plan
and another $350 million has been borrowed. That leaves a balance outstanding of
$232 million and that will be paid no later than June 30.
The money was borrowed at interest rates of between 4.5 per cent and 4.68 per
cent. That is very low interest rates, Mr. Speaker. It is considerably lower
than the 7.5 per cent at which the unfunded pension liability has been growing.
Therefore, this will result in a considerable interest savings to the people of
this Province. I believe the amount will be in the range of $27 million
annually. This payment will result in the Public Service Pension Plan having a
funded ratio of 84 per cent, as compared to a funded ratio of only 6 per cent
before this commitment was made. In exchange for this payment, the unions, who
are members of this plan, have agreed to amend the collective agreements to
remove the requirement that the government pay $60 million annually into the
Public Service Pension Plan. This amendment will reflect the terms of that
agreement.
When this was announced, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that government wanted
to address the unfunded pension liability. The people of this Province, the
taxpayers of this Province, in fact, have a legal liability to pay pension
benefits to its employees. So, it is part of the debt of the Province, it is
part of our net debt. Unfortunately, we had a large pension liability, I think
in the tune of $8.6 billion, but we have $6 billion in the pension fund already.
That pension fund money is invested and each year there is added to that pension
fund contributions of our employees, which contributions are matched by the
government as employer. So the amount of money in the pension fund does increase
every year. That money is then invested, and the investment returns of the fund
have been quite outstanding over the years, over the long term. I forget the
actual number, but the pension plan has done exceptionally well.
The p