Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 11 May 2009 (46th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLVI No. 18)
2009-05-11
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May
11, 2009
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 18
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Today we welcome the following hon. members' statements: the hon. the
Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the
District of Labrador West; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de
Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; and the
hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize and congratulate twenty-six year old, Trooper Scott
Simms, of Channel-Port aux Basques on his service to our country and his safe
return from Afghanistan.
Trooper Simms is a member of the Royal Canadian Dragoons with the Canadian
Armed Forces and he recently returned from a successful tour of duty in
Afghanistan. Scott was stationed at the Forward Operating Base at Frontenac, in
the Argandab District where he was the driver of a Coyote and other assigned
duties. Scott's tour of duty in Afghanistan was from September 20, 2008 to May
3, 2009. He celebrated his twenty-sixth birthday while in Kandahar.
Trooper Simms is the son of Wayne and Gail Simms of Channel-Port aux Basques.
Scott is currently stationed in Petawawa, Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
thanks to Trooper Scott Simms on his service to our country. All the best to
Scott and his family.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the organizing committee and
drama troupes from across the Province on a remarkable week of theatre preformed
at the fifty-ninth annual Provincial Drama Festival held from April 14 to April
18 at the Arts and Culture Centre in Labrador West.
I want to particularly recognize the Northern Lights Theatre Company of
Labrador West for their impressive showing. This was the debut entry at the
drama festival for this relatively new theatre group and they walked away as the
overall winners for their performance of Dancing at Lughnasa.
They captured the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador award for the best
presentation for a full length play, the Hans Tode Memorial Trophy for
innovative and imaginative set design and the Newfoundland Herald audience
appreciation award.
The Northern Lights Troupe also won an array of individual awards. The Neala
F. Griffin award went to Peter McCormack for best direction, the VOCM
Scholarship award went to stage manager Ashleigh Strang. The Honorary Chairman's
Award for best performance by a man went to Lester Simmons. Darrell Brenton took
the Alan Power memorial trophy for the best lighting design and Wendy Chambers
walked away with the Margaret Doyle Trophy for True Spirit of the Festival.
Meanwhile, the Reg Harte Memorial Award for best supporting performance by a
man went to Nick McGrath of the Carol Players also from Labrador West.
The Off-Broadway Players from Corner Brook, Gander's Avion Players and
Stephenville's Bay Theatre also won a number of impressive awards.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating everyone involved with the fifty-ninth Annual Provincial Drama
Festival on an outstanding success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 8, the Class of 2009 at Ascension
Collegiate held their senior prom night. It was truly an evening of celebration
with the forty-fourth graduating class.
A service conducted by Father Clem Flarety and the graduating students was
held at All Hallows Roman Catholic Church. Chairpersons for the evening was
Olivia Crane and Adam Coombs. The valedictorian speech was given by Justin
Delaney.
As parents and grandparents viewed the proceedings, 170 students were
presented. This year's theme was: Memories Old-Memories New.
One of the highlights of the evening was the announcement of their king and
queen of the prom. The winners were Garrett Mercer of Bay Roberts and Josie
Brown of Shearstown.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations
to the Class of 2009 at Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, and wish them every
success in their future endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie
Verte-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the outstanding efforts and
contributions of Life Unlimited For Older Adults. This volunteer group of
seniors, under the capable leadership of Phyllis Gard, Gloria Sheppard, Donna
Snow and Bonnie Rowsell, unselfishly serve the seniors of our community.
They offer weekly programs such as moving for health, monthly initiatives
such as community kitchen, special events such as entertainment dinners and
intergenerational activities as ways to engage seniors in community life and to
avail of their wealth of knowledge.
Formed in 2007, Life Unlimited For Older Adults now serves as a model for
other areas as it collaborates with numerous agencies on a community, regional
and provincial level.
I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in recognizing Life Unlimited For Older
Adults for their outstanding efforts and countless hours of volunteer time as
they enhance the quality of life for our seniors.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a
long time and wonderful volunteer in the Town of York Harbour.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mrs. Lottie Childs. Mrs. Childs, Mr.
Speaker, was volunteering for forty-eight years in the town. Her interests are
obviously for the well-being of her town and people and some of her involvements
are as follows:
Over twenty years on council and presently holding the position as deputy
mayor. Coordinator for the very popular Blow Me Down Folk Festival in August of
each year.
Mr. Speaker, Lottie was a member of the Firettes for the past twenty-three
years. She organized a committee for A-CAP, responsible for cleaning up the
beach on an annual basis. Lottie is also a member on the ATV Committee and a
member of the St. James Church Boat Tour Committee.
With all of this involvement, Mr. Speaker, Lottie still had the time to raise
a family of three and worked thirty-three years in the local fish plant.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to recognize the accomplishments of
Lottie Childs as she truly demonstrates of what volunteerism is all about.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize National Police Week in Canada from May 10-16 and
acknowledge the efforts of the dedicated members of the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the country, people will celebrate the efforts of
police officers who work tirelessly each day to serve and protect the people of
Canada. Being a police officer is no easy job, and I believe that National
Police Week is a wonderful opportunity to recognize their work. While police
officers do not ask for such recognition, it is certainly deserved.
Throughout this week, numerous activities will take place in which both
police forces in our Province will engage the community. Breakfasts are
happening in local schools, such as Wednesday at Bishop Field. Floor hockey and
basketball games are taking place between police officers, students and
teachers, and many RCMP detachments throughout the Province will be available
for tours, and a tour of RNC Headquarters is available Friday in Corner Brook.
Mr. Speaker, the Williams' government has made policing a priority of its
Administration. Budget 2008 allocated $9 million towards redevelopment of RNC
headquarters located at Fort Townsend in St. John's and $1.5 million for the
purchase of living quarters for newly stationed officers in Labrador West.
Since 2003 there are 138 new police officers. Many of these officers have
been designated to tackle issues of major concern such as illegal drugs and
child exploitation. During this period, the combined budget for both police
forces has grown by over $36 million for a total budget now surpassing $100
million. Mr. Speaker, we are all proud to have rejuvenated policing in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, May 15 is internationally recognized as Peace Officers'
Memorial Day and remembers those who have fallen in the line of duty. Again this
year I will have the honour of representing the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador in my capacity as Justice Minister at a ceremony which takes place at
11:00 a.m. at the Seventh Day Adventist Church located on Aldershot Street in
St. John's. During this service we will honour the officers who have lost
their lives in the course of duty in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to
participate in National Police Week activities taking place at their local
policing detachments or other venues in their communities. As well, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate members of both forces who have worked hard to
develop an informative and engaging police week and, indeed, I would further
extend my thanks to all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for their dedicated work for all Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians throughout the year.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his announcement.
Congratulations as well from the Official Opposition to both the RNC and the
RCMP on a job well done. We have them to thank, of course, for feeling safe in
our homes and our communities. The job seems to be getting somewhat tougher in
some circumstances, particularly in the more urban areas where robberies, drug
issues, home invasions and such seem to be increasing. Albeit we might, from
time to time, express some concerns about how they deal with some situations, we
certainly have them to thank. They are well-intentioned, well-trained and
dedicated professionals and we certainly do appreciate the service that they
provide to us and our communities.
They are not only officers in the police force; these people play a vital
role in the communities. Many of them are involved in everything from amateur
sports to town councils, even, and school systems and so on, so it is very, very
helpful that we have them there, not only to provide the safety but also to
enhance our social fabric that we have in our communities.
I would encourage everyone to participate in the events they have around the
Province this week as well. As we say, we certainly support them in celebrating
National Police Week.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister
for the advance copy of his statement.
I, too, am pleased to join in celebrating the efforts of the police officers
working in Newfoundland and Labrador: our own Newfoundland Constabulary as well
as the RCMP. It is good to put investments into the forces, and I am glad to see
more investments going into infrastructure, as has happened this year with our
budget, but the RNC also needs more resources to provide more and continuous
training to officers to ensure that they can operate professionally in the
society they are hired to serve.
We all remember, of course, the incident not too long ago involving an
autistic man, a young autistic man arrested and detained overnight on suspicion
of being intoxicated. It is still fresh in our minds. This incident might have
been avoided if more training had been available.
I do understand that training on this particular issue is now being done, but
more needs to be done with regard to general sensitivity training. We owe it to
the men and women of our police forces that adequate training is given. They
want to serve us as best they can. Every bit of training is as important,
possibly even more important sometimes, than the building of facilities,
although we know we need the facilities.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to share some exciting news
regarding the provincial government's ongoing economic stimulus plan.
This fiscal year alone the provincial government will invest approximately
$800 million in infrastructure, and in excess of $4 billion over the next
several years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: This builds upon our pledge to stimulate the economy and
combat the global economic crisis. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we were and still are
well ahead of the country in battling the looming economic crisis with sound
infrastructure planning and investment already put in place by our government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that our Province is the
third in the country to sign on to the stimulus package by the federal
government and the first, I might add, who has done it without the threat of an
election.
Over the past five years, Mr. Speaker, we have invested $1.5 billion in our
provincial infrastructure. Now we see our foresight and planning coming to
fruition, creating jobs and boosting the economy in our Province.
We are not wasting any time rolling out this program. We have already issued
or awarded tenders for $130 million of this year's infrastructure stimulus
package, with the vast majority of the work being done out in rural areas of
this Province. We are putting shovels and hammers in hands and getting
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to work right now. It is anticipated our
investment plan will create or sustain approximately 5,400 person years of
employment this year.
This morning we achieved another milestone in our infrastructure strategy by
signing a $366 million deal with the federal government to expedite significant
construction and rehabilitation projects throughout the Province. The Province
is contributing $175 million to these ventures.
Some of the highlights of today's announcements include: $84.4 million for
a variety of cost-shared National Highway System projects, and $55 million -
$32.5 million of which comes from the provincial government to extend the
Team Gushue Highway from Kenmount Road to the Goulds By-Pass Road.
Another major project is the replacement of the Kenmount Road Overpass
the infamous Kenmount Road Overpass. We should see work on the $9 million
project start this summer. The replacement structure will be large enough to
permit four-laning of Topsail road to handle continual traffic growth in that
area.
Nine million dollars will also be invested to lengthen the runway at Deer
Lake airport by 1,000 feet to increase service capacity and improve landing
capability in adverse weather conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I am particularly pleased to announce that $5.5
million will be invested to expand port facilities in St. Anthony. This
expansion will relieve congestion and accommodate the increasing level of naval,
Coast Guard and containership traffic. Today's funding will also provide $6
million worth or upgrades to the Argentia Access Road.
In Labrador, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, there is funding to
continue widening and hard-surfacing of Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: - and $6 million to re-route a very dangerous piece of road
of approximately five kilometres at Pinware River.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Even the Leader of the Opposition is applauding; it must be a
good day. Either she or I are not for much longer. I did not even send her a
card on Mother's Day.
Funding was also provided in today's announcement for a variety of
municipal projects throughout the Province.
Mr. Speaker, the Williams' government took a strategic approach in creating
our long-term infrastructure plan. We addressed the needs of the various sectors
- projects that we needed to move forward on and created jobs for our
skilled workers, and did so because the timing is right. As we anticipated, we
seem to be getting good value for the dollars that we are spending.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement, and to say no doubt
the announcements that he made in this statement are all very important.
I just wanted to look at, in one of the paragraphs he mentioned we should see
work on the $9 million starting this summer. Hopefully all of those projects
will start this summer, because they are very crucial to the network in our
Province, and it is good to see that the government here in the Province do work
in conjunction with the federal government from time to time as we hear talk
about the $360 million.
It is always positive to hear about more roadwork being done, because we know
many of our roads have to be upgraded. Only last week I spoke to the minister
about maintenance on the road, and the closing of the depots, and something has
to be done with those. Mr. Speaker, in all, good roads and good links to our
communities are also important to our tourism industry.
I know the minister mentioned about the workforce. We always know that is a
crucial problem from time to time, but in one of the statements I read this week
we lost some 2,800 jobs here in the Province last month and approximately 8,800
in the last twelve months. Hopefully this work that the minister has announced
here today will take care of some of those individuals, to get jobs, because it
is not what it was out west, and hopefully this will help the people of our
Province.
We concur with the statement that he has made today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is good
to see the money finally being delivered today from the federal government. We
have had this announcement before, in their January budget, and finally money is
coming through. Certainly the municipalities in our Province will be delighted
with the funding and be able to move some of the Province's plans ahead as
well.
Unfortunately, though, what the government has not included and did not
include in its economic stimulus plan is an investment in social infrastructure.
That means programs that are needed to be the structure of a healthy society.
Government needs to understand that by expanding their definition of
infrastructure to include programs like child care, these programs also have an
economic impact. Studies show that economies are improved by investment in
social infrastructure. Affordable housing, schools, libraries, recreation
centres, all of these things contribute to the economy as well as to the
community.
For example, as I have pointed out many times to the government, Mr. Speaker,
increasing child care spaces helps create long-term jobs, create more training
in child care, and helps single mothers return to the workforce. So I continue
to encourage this government to understand the need for social infrastructure in
their spending.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The nurses' union have rejected government's final contract offer by a
vote of 63 per cent. It appears that we are headed towards a strike. This will
negatively impact patients and our health care system but can be avoided if
government is willing to go to binding arbitration on two clauses that cost no
money and are simply policy decisions.
I ask the Premier today: While a strike could be only a week away, why will
you not send these issues of dispute to binding arbitration?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, a strike can be avoided if
the nurses decide not to go on strike. It is my understanding that 80 per cent
voted and that 63 per cent of those who voted, voted to have a strike. The math
on that is 50.4 per cent, so one out of two nurses wants a strike and one out of
two nurses do not want a strike.
The reason that the other nurses do not want a strike is because we have
answered everything they have asked for. We asked to resolve the question of
recruitment; we have done that. The question of retention, we have done that. We
increased their pay package, done. Increase standby fees, done. Increase shift
differential, done. We also replenished their educational leave fund, $180,000.
We also formed a senior joint quality of work life committee to address
system-wide nursing and patient care issues. We have also enhanced experience
credits for nurses wanting to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. We can do no
more.
We do not want a strike, but if the nurses decide that they are going to
strike there is nothing we can do about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, although the final contract offer was voted 63 per
cent by nurses, the strike vote was actually 89 per cent which was taken
earlier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not sufficiently
explained why these two clauses cannot be sent to binding arbitration.
I ask the Minister of Finance today to explain to the people of the Province
why you are so determined to put the nurses on the street because of these two
policies, and tell us why you are refusing to go to binding arbitration.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we are not determined to put the
nurses on the streets. They will decide themselves.
As the Premier has indicated, they have asked us to address the issues of
recruitment and retention and we have done that. They have asked to be made
competitive. They will be the highest paid nurses east of Ontario, so we have
answered their concerns, Mr. Speaker.
Let me say something about collective bargaining. It is not simply we take
what we want and then we go to binding arbitration on what we do not like. That
is not the way this works. We put a package offer in front of them. Myself and
the Premier explained to the president of the union that this is the final
offer, and we said time and time again, we are not going to binding arbitration.
The market adjustment also deals with issues of recruitment and retention.
Government wants to maintain maximum flexibility.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, 30,000 of the public sector employees
in this Province have accepted those two clauses, I do not see the problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
But market adjustment in this sense is also about bypassing the collective
bargaining process, and the minister knows that, and cutting deals with
individual nurses. This is what the problem is.
For example, if a nurse that is working in Burin for the past five years and
has that experience, they would be paid about 8 per cent or 9 per cent less than
a new recruit that is working side-by-side if government wanted to negotiate
that deal.
So I ask the minister, the issue here is about union busting. It is really
what it is about, and this is what it looks like, unless there is a reason that
government can give for not going to binding arbitration.
So I ask the minister: What is the objective here? Is it to bust the union
and have segregation of the nursing workforce in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I was going to say I would expect more from the Leader of the
Opposition, she obviously does not understand. You should not mislead the
public, I say to you.
Mr. Speaker, market adjustments are all variable pay incentives. It can be
retention bonuses, it can be recruitment bonuses, it can be bursaries,
relocation expenses. It is something that is going on out there now. We are
developing a policy that will address all of these issues and we will apply them
fairly and consistently. We have never said, as a government, that we are going
to pay one nurse standing side-by-side more than another nurse. What we have
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. KENNEDY: Can I finish my question, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: My answer? Yes, can I?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: Now perhaps, Mr. Speaker
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to direct his comments to the Chair and to conclude his
answer.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have not said that we were going to do that. What we have said as a
government, that we will maintain maximum flexibility in addressing recruitment
and retention issues, that this deal is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, in these
economic times, and for the life of me I cannot understand what the difficulty
is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While the minister says it is not their intention, you are asking to reserve
the right to be able to cut deals outside of collective bargaining with
individual nurses, and that is what you are doing under market adjustment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, because these issues are non-monetary and because they can
be settled by an independent party, why is it that government is reluctant to
take that process?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the comments of the Opposition House
Leader last week when he says: We need nurses in Ramea, or we need nurses to
work with nurse practitioners and government should do something about it.
Well, one of the ways we deal with recruitment, Mr. Speaker, is by having the
ability to deal with situations as they arise. What the market adjustment will
do, it will give us the opportunity to address situations that need to be
addressed, Mr. Speaker, and it again goes back to the main issue that the nurses
talked about, were recruitment and retention. What we have said is that we will
treat everyone fairly and consistently. Mr. Speaker, a 31 per cent increase in
these economic times, when I heard the Member for Port de Grave talk about
layoffs there that were announced last week in terms of statistics, I say to
you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a most generous offer and one that is part of a
package.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will be the first to acknowledge the offers that are already on the table
by this government for nurses and we are not disputing whether that is adequate
or inadequate.
What I will say to the minister is that outside of the market adjustment
clause your government, and governments before have also had special agreements
for nurses in this Province, and Labrador is one of those regions. It was
negotiated without having this clause in the agreement. So why is it required
now to deal with special circumstances?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me reiterate that a new nurse entering the profession will start - him or
her - their salary will start at $55,000. Senior nurses will go to $75,000.
These increases, Mr. Speaker, are ones that are necessary to address the
concerns of recruitment and retention.
The president of the union, from what I understand, has said publicly that
she has no problem with the offering of recruitment bonuses, she has no problem
with signing bonuses, when, in essence, Mr. Speaker, all we are doing as a
government is developing a market adjustment policy which will ensure
consistency and fairness across the board.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to allowing for contracts to be negotiated,
Treasury Board will indicate to the health boards what they can or cannot do
within reason. All we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is maintain maximum
flexibility so that the people of this Province receive the health care that
they deserve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
According to governments responses today in the vote that has been taken by
the nurses, I think a strike is inevitable and could happen as early as the next
week.
I ask the Minister of Health today: Have any contingency plans been
finalized? When will they be implemented, and when will patients start being
notified as to what the level of service that will be provided to them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: There are multiple questions there, Mr. Speaker, but I
believe the first one: Has there contingency plans been made? You might recall,
I responded in this House earlier in this session that in fact each of our four
authorities have negotiated with the nurses' union essential employee
agreements. So throughout each of our organizations there are arrangements in
place with the nurses' union where they will provide essential employees to be
able to provide emergency response services and care to those people who are
critically ill. When will that be activated? We do not have a notice of strike
yet, and until that happens, the health authorities are at business as usual and
they will continue to provide health service to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Should, or when and should the nurses' union decide to serve notice,
because I understand they need to serve a seven-day notice, if that should be
served then that will activate a response from the authorities that will then
start to notify patients of any changes that may occur in the services that they
are scheduled for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Although the minister is waiting for an official paper trail on the strike, I
think everyone in the Province realizes what has been happening and I am sure
the health authorities are preparing.
I ask the minister, in comparison to a normal nursing shift, what percentage
of nurses would remain on a shift during a strike period as part of that
contingency plan?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just by way of education for the member
opposite, these essential employee agreements are negotiated by each of the
authorities, site specific. So within, for example, the Health Sciences Centre,
the emergency department may not see any changes in the level of staffing that
would be required to provide emergency service. So I suspect that in the
emergency department there will be no change at all. In some other unit there
may be some slight adjustments in the level of service or the number of nurses
who will work that schedule.
So the answer to her question is quite simply, it will vary by site in terms
of a physical location. It will vary by unit, nursing unit or critical care area
or patient care area within a particular site. So that may vary, but on average
there is around 40 per cent I believe across the system. On average about 40 per
cent of the nurses will have been deemed as essential employees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have also heard the minister state previous that all non-essential
services would be postponed should the strike occur.
I ask the minister today, if he could outline for us what non-essential
services that would be and approximately how many surgeries would be cancelled
as a result of this?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the critical responsibilities we have as
a system and that is why the nurses' union have worked collaboratively with
the health authorities. During a strike, should there be a disruption in
service, then we want to make sure that we are able to respond to those
emergencies; people who are critically ill, respond to emergencies, things that
we cannot predict.
Those things that are much more elective and can be planned for, those sorts
of programs and services may be postponed, they may be rescheduled for after a
strike but critically, one of the things that we want to make sure we are able
to do is respond to emergency services in each of our health facilities around
the Province and those people who need critical care, get the critical care they
need. Those people who need emergency response, they get the emergency response.
That will be the focus during any strike situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The
federal government is reportedly looking at financial aid for the struggling
lobster industry and they have been holding meetings over the weekend with
several fisheries groups.
I ask the minister, if he has been involved in those meetings or if he has
been given any indication by the federal government what programs are being
considered for lobster harvesters in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the meetings, we have been
involved in meetings with our counterparts in the Maritimes since before
Christmas in trying to come to grips with the falling price of lobster and the
market problems that they have been having, and throughout those meetings,
struggling with trying to come up with ways in which we could address the times.
Up until this present time, basically it is talking about marketing,
diversification, so on and so forth. Of course, I read the same
article that the
Leader of the Opposition read, that the federal government now, through Minister
McKay, have indicated that they are looking at it and will get back to the
industry. That is news to us as well and we are obviously waiting to see exactly
what it is that they now
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know in his statements he quoted that programs would be available in Nova
Scotia and P.E.I. He did not list Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly that
was the reason for my question to the minister, to ensure that we were included.
As well, I was aware of other programs that were launched in Atlantic Canada
between governments and the private sector to encourage further sales in the
lobster industry. I am not entirely supportive of the route they choose but the
concept is a good one.
I ask the minister if this is something that his department or government are
considering in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again we are always open to any way that we
can assist industry, be it the fishing industry or any industry, especially with
regard to the workers.
Of course, we are aware of the attempts that have been made throughout the
Atlantic Provinces, in any number of different ways, to try to address this
particular difficulty we are having now with the market downturn. Again, we are
always open to any solutions that come our way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the crab fishery remains in turmoil with both the
processors and the union headed for a showdown by the looks of it.
I ask the minister: Are you aware of any new developments or discussions that
will see a full redemption of the crab fishery in the next few days?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, since last I stood in this House the panel
have made a decision to hold the price as it is. It is obviously not to the
satisfaction of either party, to be honest with you. Right now, the market
conditions have not changed and both of these parties, of course this is a
collective agreement they have had between each other, and I guess the onus is
still upon these particular parties to come to some sort of an agreement. If the
price is not there, then they have to make decisions as to where they go from
there.
I understand they are in the process of that, and we will continue to support
them in any way we can to bring resolve to this situation as we see it now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if this issue is not resolved soon, obviously
things could get worse.
I ask the minister: With limited processing capacity available, what impact
will this have on plant worker who are obviously caught in the middle of this
entire dispute?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, admittedly this is a very, very difficult
situation. I think both sides of the House recognize that.
We understand, too, that the reasons for this difficulty do not necessarily
rest with us. It is about a recession, it is about poor markets, it is about
buyers who are not setting a price, and it is about us being very, very
vulnerable at this particular time. Again, as I have indicated in the past, we
will continue to work as hard as we can possibly work with these groups to
ensure that the fishery continues and that it is in the best interests of them,
as an industry. Again, I cannot control what goes on beyond our borders.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has continuously stated that he would go it alone on the European
Union trade negotiations, putting issues affecting our Province front and centre
on their agenda, and enter into bilateral agreements with the EU.
As stated in today's paper, the EU representatives said that they would not
be entering negotiations with this Province, and those discussions will have to
take place with the federal government.
I ask the Premier: In light of these comments, will we be joining the federal
government now as part of these trade negotiations, and will we have an in
through that route?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. We will not be joining
the federal government in these negotiations. We will continue to state our
case.
We have proof now, as a result of what they have done with the whole sealing
protest, that they will not be there to safeguard our interests. That was our
concern right from the start: that they would not represent the interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they would trade off our interests for the
interests of other Canadians.
That is not in our best interest, so we are not going to abide by that. We
will not co-operate with them. We will continue to state our case on the more
important issues equally important issues, forgive me of tariffs and, as
well, foreign overfishing and custodial management.
So there are other bigger issues. There is also the whole issue of the
Atlantic Accord and what is going to happen when European countries do business
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have a case to make, and whether they invite us to sit at the table or
not, we could not care less. We will state our case publicly, here and around
the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the government's decision to opt
out of the EU negotiations as part of the federal contingency will have an
impact, no doubt, on local businesses and the products that we are exporting,
and our ability to be able to trade with the EU.
I am asking the government today: Are there any plans in place to look at
other options, to look at how we can deliver a stronger message so that our
business community is not impacted by those decisions?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our history in this Province has been
giveaways. It has been giving away and giving in and kowtowing to the federal
around the world to the detriment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Those days are over. Those days ended with this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There are also a lot of very big, multinational,
European companies that want to do business in Newfoundland and Labrador,
because of our minerals, because of our oil and gas, because of our fishery, and
we have to take the abuse from these hypocrites basically saying that we act in
an inhumane and a barbarian manner, when they chase bulls through the streets in
Spain, and matadors pierce bulls in a Roman type atmosphere, and we are out
trying to earn a living.
We are going to do what we have to do here to protect the interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I could not care less what the rest of
them do, I have to be quite honest with you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The government previously stated back in 2008 that it intended to bring
forward legislation regarding the autonomy of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College. We
have yet to see any such legislation come to pass.
I ask the minister: Is this delay linked to a re-evaluation of whether or not
this government should give Sir Wilfred Grenfell College full university status?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker . We are continuing to work
through a process with officials at Grenfell College and Memorial University and
our own officials at the Department of Education. We intend to move forward, and
when the legislation is ready we will have it before the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in 2007 the student enrolment at Sir Wilfred
Grenfell College was approximately 1,400; however, Mr. Paul Wilson, a professor
at the college who is also a Memorial University Senator, recently told the news
media that the college current enrolment is less than 1,000 students, and may be
approaching a critical point where it is no longer capable of maintaining upper
level degree programs. This is a significant decline, considering that the
college was hoping to have an enrolment of 2,000 by the fall of 2008.
I ask the minister: Has government looked at this decline and its causes, and
is this playing any role in the delay of bringing forth legislation on Sir
Wilfred Grenfell College autonomy?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the challenges raised by the
member opposite, as well as many other challenges that confront us as we try to
move forward with any significant venture that we are going on like this. I say
to the member opposite, that is why we are taking our time and we are going to
make sure we do things right.
I also remind the member opposite that is why we brought in some significant
investments in tuition freeze in this Province. I also remind the member that as
a result of our investment in that kind of initiative we are seeing a lot of
enrolment come to our institutions from outside of the Province, in places like
Nova Scotia and elsewhere.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in the days following the release of the
Kelly-Davies report in 2007 many voiced their concerns that the report lacked a
thorough analysis of the cost of extending greater autonomy to Sir Wilfred
Grenfell College. In response to the report, the university's administration
calculated that, based on small universities elsewhere, a separate university in
Corner Brook would require a budget of approximately $26.9 million with an
enrolment of 2,000 full-time students.
I ask the minister: Has government prepared its own estimates on the cost of
extending full university status to the college?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: As I have said previously, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
development of legislation, and bringing it before the House, issues like the
member opposite continues to raise are all part of an ongoing process where we
are engaged with officials at Grenfell, as well as Memorial, in consultation
with our own officials at the Department of Education, and we will assess the
issue raised, and many other issues.
At the end of the day, our intention as a government is to make that work.
Until we are ready to move forward with legislation and the supporting
guidelines to make it work we will not be in front of the House, but we are
certainly working through a process and at the appropriate point in time we will
bring legislation before the House and move it forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I also recently received a Department of
Education briefing note from an Access to Information Request. The briefing note
is dated November 20, 2008, and it regards the cost of increasing the autonomy
at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College. While much of it has been blacked out, the note
states that the long-term financial implications of enhancing the college's
autonomy cannot be predicted as it will develop over time.
I ask the minister: If cost cannot be predicted, what financial analysis is
being used and, with the ongoing delays, has cost become an obstacle in giving
Grenfell autonomy?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, with all due
respect, we are aware, as a government, that any investment outside of the
overpass and into rural Newfoundland is going to cost money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: I also say that there are many initiatives that governments,
over the years, become engaged with, where it is very difficult to nail down
exactly what a cost is going to be from one moment to the next. I simply point
out, who would have known twelve months ago what the markets would be like in
the world today?
Certainly, we are cognizant of that. We are cognizant of many other issues
that we have to address before we bring legislation before the House and before
we make the final move to give autonomy to Grenfell College. We will make sure
that we do due diligence so that when we do come before the House it will be a
successful venture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday past the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said,
when referring to crab pricing, this is the dance that goes on every year.
Mr. Speaker, considering the number of fish plant workers and crab fishers,
and the large revenue that the crab fishery brings into the Province, this is a
very flippant remark to be made by the minister in charge of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again, as I did last week: Will the minister
sit down with the union, harvesters and processors together, as he did in
February, to work through the current issues on crab pricing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, with the time that you get to get up in the
House, oftentimes we make comparisons, metaphors, whatever you want to call it.
That is one of them, but it is not a flippant remark because it does adequately
describe how, during this time of year, in all the years that I know in the
fishery, that is the sort of dance that goes on.
The former Minister of Fisheries, the Leader of the Opposition, you know
exactly what I am talking about, right? It is something that it is not to
downgrade any efforts on our part at all, right? So the thing about it is, and I
said before as I say now: I am open and accessible to all the groups that are
involved in this particular impasse, if you want to look at it this way. With
the price setting panel, I brought the groups together less than a couple of
weeks ago, again to speak with them to try to find a common ground that we need
in order to move forward. I still seek that common ground. I am still accessible
and I am still working as hard as I can on behalf of our government to get where
we need to be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the minister is not ready to give the leadership that he should be
giving.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday call the three parties
together, I say, Mr. Speaker. Call them together!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Standing
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of the District of Signal HillQuidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the minister has alluded, last Thursday the Standing Fish
Price Setting Panel rejected the request by the Association of Seafood
Processors application to reduce raw material prices for crab. Mr. Speaker,
there are a number of processors that are buying crab. It seems to me that fact
puts in question the position of the processors that there is no profit to be
had at the current price set by the panel.
So I ask the Speaker: Will the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
unequivocally support the price set by the panel?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be baited into doing a
dance here today, I tell you, because this is a serious
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. HEDDERSON: - and I am not going to be led in that dance by anyone
from across the House, I can tell you that right now, but I will say, Mr.
Speaker, that again, and I reiterate, that this is a collective bargaining
procedure, one which we have set up through the Price Setting Panel to be able
to negotiate and to work with the two groups. Now, I have been asked to get into
the middle of that and to impose, I suppose, some sort of a solution when again,
I say to the hon. member on the other side, this is two parties that are
struggling to come to grips with a downturn in an economy that is beyond all of
our control. So all I am saying is that we are doing the best we can in these
trying times.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I will not repeat what I said in response to the minister's last question.
It still stands.
Mr. Speaker, the minister in his statement in this House last Thursday saying
the comparison of local crab prices with prices in Atlantic Canada is like
comparing apples to oranges has caused bewilderment in the industry, as
reflected in an
article in Friday's Telegram on the first page of the
business
section where FFAW head Earle McCurdy questions what the minister could
have meant. According to the head of the FFAW, snow crab is snow crab, which is
my point.
So could the minister stand and explain to the head of the union what he
meant when he compared snow crab and snow crab to apples and oranges?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Time for a quick answer from the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I had to put on my glasses for that one
because I cannot see where this is going because again, I made a comparison to
draw attention to the uninformed that there are differences between the snow
crab situation in the Maritimes as it is in this Province.
The Leader of the Opposition, when she was Fisheries Minister, had a report
done, the Dunne Report and it identified fifteen different variables. Let me put
on my glasses. Bonuses, markets, characteristics and quality of crab, price
setting mechanism, competition for the project, jurisdictional processing
requirements, shipping costs, how it is financed and on and on and on again.
Again, there are differences. I made a point that there are differences!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ending December 31, 2008, as per
the Hydro Corporation Act.
I am also tabling the Nalcor Energy Business and Financial Report for 2008 as
per the Energy Corporation Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motions.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
MR. T. MARSHALL: How soon they forget, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting The Public Trustee. (Bill 27)
Mr. Speaker, I further give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 28)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I
shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 12, 2009.
Further, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the
House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 12, 2009.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to move the following private member's resolution:
WHEREAS the present financial assessment tool used by government to assess
home care and home support sets up barriers for people; and
WHEREAS government's new financial assessment tool will not be in place
until December 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS the present system discriminates against people who need care at home
and people who receive care in institutions; and
WHEREAS seniors, persons living with disabilities, and those living with
chronic diseases require home care and home support, some on a daily basis, some
on a short-term basis, and some on a sporadic basis;
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to implement immediately a needs-based assessment tool for
assessing home care and home support in the Province;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to create a fully regulated home care and home support
system.
Seconded by the MHA for Port de Grave.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to stand on my seventh petition concerning
dialysis equipment for the Southwestern region of the Province. It certainly
generated a lot of feedback, shall we say, over the weekend. I am very pleased
to say, in fact, we did have a telephone conference this morning with two of the
individuals involved in Western Health, and they provided me with some
information, because they said they certainly would not want me to be
misinformed in what I say here in the House.
It was not a case so much of being misinformed, I guess; it was not having
the total information package that was required. So, those two individuals who
work with Western Health did give me some information which is crucial as well.
First of all, of course, the training issue of staff: We have already
indicated that the staff in the institution could be trained to provide the
services. I was under the impression that it was about six weeks to do it, but
apparently, according to the information now, it takes about eight weeks to do
the training, so not a big deal, a couple of extra weeks to do the training. The
bottom line is, the training can be done and there would have to be a certain
period, two to four weeks, of clinical training as well. Of course, the hospital
could not free up the four or five persons to go and do that training all at one
time. You need four or five in a pool, of course, who are capable of doing it,
but that does not require that you take four or five out of your staff and go do
all the training at one time. You can train so many today and, as time goes on,
you have a continuing education program to provide that training, so that
training is possible there.
The equipment: Apparently it is not an official fundraising effort of the
local foundation but, I assure you, it will not take much for it to become such
and it will not take much for the people of Southwestern Newfoundland to put
their money where their mouth is and make sure that the equipment is provided.
We have provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last ten years through
the Health Care Foundation to support equipment purchases, not only in our own
hospital in Port aux Basques but in the hospital in Corner Brook, in the Western
Region, because we all use that as well. It is not that we will only support
what we are going to use in our communities. We will support what is needed by
anybody in the region.
We have been doing that for ten years and, I do not mind saying, for the last
ten years I have taken
part in every single one, I believe, except one, telethon
that we have done to raise funds. It takes place over a weekend, usually in
October month. So, equipment is not going to be an issue.
Now there is a proposal in the works, of course, and it is going to take some
time to finalize the details of the proposal. How many people will need home
care? Is home care appropriate in some circumstances as opposed to a satellite
system? What do we do that accomplishes and maximizes everything on a
enhances the services for dialysis on a regional basis?
We are not suggesting that we should just look after the needs of Port aux
Basques and nobody else. Obviously it needs to be a package that services the
whole region, but the bottom line is, regardless of what package you choose, you
have to have some services to the people of Southwestern Newfoundland which
keeps them from having to travel extensive, unacceptable distances every single
week of their lives, not once but three times a week, from Port aux Basques to
Stephenville or Corner Brook to get these services.
So, a little bit more information. I have more but time does not permit me
today in this petition to get it all out, but I will have some time as long the
House is open, from now until whenever the dialysis is finally agreed to, so I
will be back with further.
Again, the people have not given up on it. I went home for the weekend,
actually, and I picked up another suitcase full of petitions, so I have lots of
petitions from now until 2011 when election time comes around again. We will see
then how government has dealt with the issue.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to stand with another petition with regard to the Long
Island Causeway, it is called, a fixed link between Long Island and Pilley's
Island.
I have to say to the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, that I have quite a few
petitions. I can't say I have a suitcase full, but I have enough to get us
through this session, let me assure you, and they are continually coming in.
We all know the situation: That those people were promised a causeway back in
2003. That issue came to the forefront, I guess, when this government took over
and found that the financial situation wasn't in place for them. That is
little consolation to those people, Mr. Speaker. Now that they know the
financial affairs of our Province have turned around we hear, today, major
announcements being made with regard to road infrastructure and water and sewer
and so on the residents and the Long Island Causeway and Transportation
Committee believe their concerns are not being addressed.
I understand, Mr. Speaker and I can stand to be corrected, but I was
talking to the lady with regard to this committee they have a meeting
arranged, I think, with government. Hopefully, government will reconsider their
decision. Maybe something good will come from this meeting. It is good to know
they are getting together. Maybe the petitions are making a little difference
and the minister will listen to their concerns, because they do have concerns,
Mr. Speaker.
They have been serviced well over the years with a ferry service. Their
request was either for a new ferry or this link to the island. They are saying
it is more feasible, financially, for that to be done.
The concerns they have I repeated them before are: the issue with
regard to getting, in a timely fashion, to the hospital when people need medical
attention; the transportation of their students to the schools; and the products
from the fish plant, Mr. Speaker.
Listening to what they have to say and knowing the concerns they have, being
isolated I know what it is like to be on an island. That is where I was
raised. Those people have some major concerns in this day and age. Many of those
people were resettled. Maybe that is what they are trying to do here. Those
people are standing firm. They are asking for a good ferry link to the Island or
a causeway, which is their preference, because of the financial reasons.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, today, to be able to stand on behalf of the
residents and this committee to present this petition to the hon. House of
Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to deliver the seventh petition with respect to
the Towns of Ramea, Grey River and Francois, and their need for a fully
complemented medical facility in the community of Ramea.
I have mentioned this, as I say, seven times before. My colleague from Port
de Grave talked about living on an island. Well, anyone who knows Ramea knows it
is an island, and of course you need to have the basics, at least, when it comes
to medical attention. The clinic there was supposed to be staffed by two nurse
practitioners. For months and months and months they have only had one nurse
practitioner. She has taken up residence and lives in Ramea and is quite
contented, but that person, of course, cannot do it all. That person needs a day
off. She cannot work twenty-four seven, 365 and she needs some help.
They are putting in a little bit of backup. There is an LPN that can do
certain things, that is going to get certain training to try to help out. There
is also some staff that comes from Burgeo from time to time if there are special
events and so on and you have an influx of people into the community, but that
is not sufficient. The bottom line is it is difficult for Western Health to
attract the other second nurse practitioner because of their current attraction
system.
The Minister of Finance talked today about recruitment and retention bonuses.
He talked about the need for it in Ramea, and I was up here preaching about it
for successive days. The minister is quite right, I have been on my feet talking
about nurses for Ramea, but unfortunately, the current system that he has in the
Department of Finance and government has with respect to recruitment is not
serving the purpose. It is fine in some cases. Maybe you can attract them here
with the recruitment if they come to bigger centres in more urbanized areas, but
when it comes to rural Newfoundland you have to do something a little bit
special, I would say to the minister, and your standard package does not fit
everybody.
I have suggested before: Why not allow the recruitment and retention bonuses
to apply to anyone who is currently a member of the nursing profession in this
Province? Why does it have to be a new graduate, or why does it have to be
someone who comes from outside the Province? There may well be someone in this
Province who is a member of the nursing profession who would be prepared, maybe
she is retired or he is retired and they would prepared to go to somewhere like
Ramea for a year. Yet, they are not going to go if you do not give them this
extra incentive to go. That is what we are suggesting to the minister but so far
he has blinkers on. I cannot say blinkers because blinkers you still see ahead
and you just do not see to the side. I think he has one of these night masks on
because he is not prepared to look at all and he is in the dark.
I will be back, every opportunity that the House permits to have a petition
with regards to this issue. I do not mind speaking up for the residents of
Franois either. I do not represent that district but they are part of the same
medical clinic coverage. They have given me the petitions as well. I know their
MHA is not getting up to speak about it. They have mentioned that to me, by the
way, that she has not, but I will do it on her behalf. That is not an issue. I
will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, until, hopefully, the situation is improved
there.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General on a point of
order.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, while you are considering the point of
order, this arose out of the minister's comments today and the rebuttal by the
hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi about training for police and being
sensitive to issues other than autism.
I just want to say for the benefit of the hon. member, the benefit of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that a report was prepared in December of
2008, not that long ago, for the Association of Chiefs of Police and for the Law
Advisory Committee of the Mental Health Commission of Canada. After referring to
the training, the mental health issues for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,
it said: it may well be that the RNC is currently setting standard in this area.
It goes on to say that, when it talks about directions for the future, it says
that the police academies may want to strive for the type of comprehensive
training that is currently offered by the RNC. So I think the people of this
Province, while more training is always needed and always will be the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador I think can have confidence in the training that our
police are receiving.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is certainly no point of order. It is a point of clarification put
forward by the hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Research and Development Council Act. (Bill 20)
I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development shall ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Research and Development Council Act, Bill 20, and
that this bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 20 and 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Research and Development Council
Act," carried. (Bill 20)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Research and Development Council Act.
(Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 20 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting
The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents. (Bill 21)
I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: Properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting
The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents, Bill 21, and that Bill 21 be now
read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 21 and 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,
"An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents,"
carried. (Bill 21)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other
Documents. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 21 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act
Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices. (Bill 22)
I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government
House Leader to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting Consumer Protection
And Business Practices, Bill 22, and that Bill 22 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 22 and that this bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,
"An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices,"
carried. (Bill 22)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business
Practices. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 22 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from today's order sheet, we want to call Order
2, Concurrence Motions, subsection (
a) Government Services Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Government Services Committee report
now be concurred.
The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly an honour for me to get up and say a few words during
concurrence debate. I guess, for our listeners at home, I should give a little
explanation of what concurrence debate is all about.
Concurrence debate is part of the budgetary debate. We call them Estimates
committees. There are three Estimates committees that meet with the minister of
each department and their staff. It gives the members of the committee the
opportunity to ask questions, direct questions about what is happening in their
department as well as line-by-line items of the budget of each department.
Sometimes it can be quite laborious. Some departments go quite a bit longer than
three hours, however, they are credited with three hours toward a seventy-five
hour time limit for Budget Debate.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is entailed in Estimates, and in turn, Concurrence
today, what we do is we bring back the report from our committee and debate it
here in the House again where everybody, any member can get up and stand and
debate concurrence again for, I believe, a total of three hours once again. Like
I said, it is all part of the seventy-five hour debate that we hold on the
Budget here in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, like I said, sometimes debate can be quite laborious and
sometimes there are repetitive questions and so on, but I must say this year it
flowed very easily. I want to acknowledge all the ministers who took part, and
in particular their staff. Their staff comes it is usually in the morning or
late in the evening that we do Estimates - and they sit here and answer
questions that are directed to them by members of the Committee, and indeed in
some areas, certainly, for technical assistance that some of the ministers would
have.
I always refer to Health, who has a budget of $2.6 billion. When somebody
bores down and asks you a specific question about a specific area out in one of
the regional health authorities, Mr. Speaker, very often than not you have to
count on your officials knowing their work as well.
One thing we are very fortunate in this Province, is that we have a great
public service. I know in Health, where I am Parliamentary Secretary as well,
they spend quite a bit of time outside the regular nine to five hours. I can
assure you that most people at executive levels in government do the same, Mr.
Speaker, and I certainly acknowledge the work that they have done.
Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out and thank
the members of the Committee as well. I will name them: the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Topsail; the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; the Member for Kilbride;
the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Exploits; and the Member for St.
John's East.
Mr. Speaker, these people sit here and ask questions, when directed.
Everybody gets an allotted time. I certainly acknowledge the work that they have
done, and the hours that they have taken out of their busy schedules to be here
in the House with us during the debate.
Mr. Speaker, as I referred to earlier, there are three different categories
in Estimates that we go through. We have Government Services, which is the
Committee that I chair. We also have two other committees. We have a Resource
Committee that is chaired by Mr. Harry Harding I do not think I am allowed
to say your name the Member for Bonavista North. As well, we have the Member
for Ferryland, who chairs the Social Services Committee of Estimates, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, these three Committees are made up of a variety of different
departments. The one that our department the Government Services Committee
we debate a number of departments. I will just list them off for our
listening audience: the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission;
the Office of the Chief Information Officer; the Department of Government
Services; the Government Purchasing Agency; the Department of Transportation and
Works; the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Intergovernmental
Affairs Secretariat; the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat; the Department of
Labrador Affairs; and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see from the broad range of departments, we certainly
touch on an awful lot of issues, and during these debates it is not uncommon for
us to touch on anything, really, as it relates to Estimates, and any time you
speak in the House on any kind of a Finance bill you certainly have the
opportunity to speak on just about anything you like, especially as it relates
to any expenditure that we spend here in government.
Over the last couple of weeks, I guess, Abitibi has been a topic of
conversation here in the House where ministers have been asked numerous
questions by members opposite, Opposition members, and rightly so. I mean, we
are into a very, very serious situation in Grand Falls-Windsor. We have an
industry, basically, that has been shutting down, and we have taken some steps
over the last little while to ensure that we not only hold on to the resource
that we have there, and some of the things that belong to the people of this
Province, Mr. Speaker, but we have also done what we can for the workers out
there who are experiencing very, very difficult times. We, as a government, are
going to continue to work with them and do what we can, Mr. Speaker, to make
sure that they get exactly what they are owed. In particular, of course, we have
heard over the last couple of weeks things like severance and so on.
Mr. Speaker it is not something that I normally do in the House but last week
in some of the reading that I had, I came across a couple of letters that I
thought were important to share here in the House. They are not from
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They are actually from people outside of this
Province. Actually, one is from Ottawa, Ontario, and the other one is from I
believe Ontario as well, a place in Ontario as well. Oh, no, it is from the
President of the Canadian Labour Congress, I think, who is certainly out of
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I thought it appropriate to share some of these endorsements and
some of the ways people are looking at our government for some of the things we
did, in particular the leadership of the Premier, and I thought it was
important.
This first letter that I would like to quote from was written by a gentleman
by the name of James Murray, like I said, who resides in Ottawa, and I just
wanted to read a couple of captions, if I could, from this letter: Newfoundland
is taking back the forestry and water rights from the company. The move is being
protested by AbitibiBowater, who have launched a protest under NAFTA, North
Atlantic Free Trade Agreement - which most of us in this House are certainly
familiar with. Williams is taking the kind of bold steps that many political
leaders only dream about doing. Certainly, the image of the leader standing up
for the people is one that every political leader would like to be seen as
doing. For most, however, by the time their team of political advisors and
consultants have examined the idea of standing up for the people, either the
time has passed or the idea seems to fade into inaction.
That is a private citizen in Ottawa, Ontario, who is sizing up the issues
here in this Province and believing in what we are doing here and certainly
believing in the steps taken by the Premier.
It even goes on to say, and I will just end on this one, by this point, he
says: "This is not to suggest that Premier Danny Williams will end up in
the political "Hall of Fame..." So he is not praising him up, that he
is going to nominate him for some form of political hall of fame, "but
rather that they can hold their heads up high long after their time in office is
over. That legacy perhaps is the best one that any elected official can leave
office with."
I have to agree, Mr. Speaker. Somebody told me first when I got involved in
this, you stand and you represent people. They told me as a member, he said,
when you leave politics, if you are known as a good constituency man, meaning
you look after the people who represent you, then I believe that that is the
biggest compliment you could have on you, not whether you are the best minister,
not whether you are the best at this, not whether you are the best in the House
of Assembly. I still believe, Mr. Speaker, that if you are known as a good
constituency man, it is certainly the highest compliment that somebody can pay
to you as an elected official.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would like to refer to on the same topic
actually, is a letter that was written to the Premier by Ken Giorgetti,
President of the Canadian Labour Congress. Now I am going to touch on a few
captions out of this. I think it is important to read this stuff into the House
just to let people know that not only are we doing this, there is all kinds of
media, there are people who have been across the country saying: Oh, we are
bullies and we are doing things against business. Mr. Speaker, these are
significant moves that we are making on behalf of the people of the Province and
it is certainly being recognized.
Mr. Speaker, this starts off by: The Canadian Labour Congress has praised
yesterday's statement by Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams and
will fight to ensure workers laid off by Abitibi
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is always reluctant to interrupt a member when he is speaking but
the hon. member is a seasoned politician and the hon. member knows what he can
recite from letters as long as he discloses who wrote the particular letters. He
can no more read a name of somebody's personal name by reading a letter that
he cannot refer to them in conversations or in debate in the House. So I ask the
hon. member, by all means bring forward his letters but to not refer to any
member here by their personal names. If it reads a member's name, read out the
position that the member occupies rather than the person's name.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with you. I certainly apologize. I did not realize the road I was
going down and I certainly do apologize for that. I certainly understand what
you are saying, the point you are making and I would probably be the one here
sitting down grumbling if somebody else was doing it, so I thank you for that,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just to continue on, the Canadian Labour Congress President, Ken
Georgetti, "praised the strong actions and leadership that he and his
government" referring to the Premier "have demonstrated on
behalf of working people."
Mr. Speaker, this is not your average person writing a letter either. This is
someone who is head of the Canadian Labour Congress. He goes on to say,
"This is the kind of leadership that Canadians expect and, quite frankly,
Canadians deserve from the governments they elect."
"This is the kind of first-class service every Canadian who has lost
their job, or lost their retirement savings, or who is being squeezed by the
banks should demand from their governments, instead of the second-class service
too many of them are getting today."
So, Mr. Speaker, there is somebody from the Canadian Labour Congress, who
represents, I might add, I think 3.2 million Canadian workers in this Province,
certainly a voice for labour throughout the country. What the CLC does, it
brings together Canada's national and international unions along with the
provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour
councils.
So, Mr. Speaker, when you have the head of one of the largest labour
movements in the country, with 3.2 million people involved, it is certainly good
to see these people believing in the actions of, indeed, the Premier, but
certainly in the actions of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about our Government Services Committee, well a number
of things we could talk about within the different departments that I outlined
earlier. Of course, when you deal with Finance and Transportation and Works,
certainly it brings open a broad base of topics.
Mr. Speaker, on February 18, 2009 and I just want to go back to this for
a minute what we did was a stimulus package. A road we decided to go down, I
guess we were probably the first in the country to go down that road as a
Province. So, we set our course, a course really that we established a number of
years ago, expecting - I guess not expecting. It would be unfair for me to say
expecting, but certainly planning for a day when things could go bad.
We know now by the world economy, and unless you are living in a bubble,
certainly you would have heard of the downturn in the world economy, and the
Province's economy too, has had effects. In the meantime, thank God, and knock
on wood, we prepared for it in a lot of ways. Certainly, we are riding the wave
a lot better than most. We are certainly not in the bubble, we are certainly not
missing it, but we are certainly riding the wave a lot better than most in our
country, and indeed our friends south of the border, Mr. Speaker. We are
probably one of the best positioned regions in North America to weather this
financial storm.
Mr. Speaker, on February 18, 2009, we did a number of things: Transportation
infrastructure, $309 million; we had educational facilities, $155 million;
health care facilities and equipment, $163 million; municipal infrastructure,
$103 million; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, $25 million; and justice
infrastructure, $18 million. As well, today I notice Nalcor had their
consolidated financial statements shared with members in the House. As well,
Nalcor, through their subsidiary of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, are
investing $48 million in various projects throughout the Province.
Mr. Speaker, at that time there was a significant announcement for my
district and one I think I should get in here now, and that is in education. I
mentioned it here in this House before. That is an extension, an addition of new
classrooms, and a challenging needs suite at St. Edward's School in Kelligrews.
I actually attended an event there on the weekend. They are now raising
money, personally, to set up and put a new playground in place. Certainly, Mr.
Speaker, I have to say the school seemed overjoyed with the extension and with
the addition of classrooms. I have to tell you, there was quite a good mood
there. The place was absolutely full as they tried to raise money for their new
playground. I haven't spoken to Mr. Gagnon, so I am not going to break the
bubble of much they hoped to raise or how much they did raise, but I am sure it
was a significant amount of money.
As well, Mr. Speaker, there was an extension of additional classrooms for
Upper Gullies Elementary.
Mr. Speaker, that brings me to today, and I wanted to touch on this today. We
had the opportunity this morning to attend a press conference at eight o'clock
at the Sheraton down at what I would always call the Newfoundland Hotel, where
there was a significant amount of money announced. I think it was, in total, a
some three hundred plus million dollar investment of which the federal
government put in $135 million and the Province $175 million. That, accumulated,
of course, with some municipal money as well, Mr. Speaker, we are well over a
$300 million investment this morning.
There is a big list of places getting done. Overall, there is $130 million of
this year's infrastructure stimulus package, so part of the $800 million has
gone into and really tripled, Mr. Speaker, and will create, apparently, 5,400
person years of employment, which is significant in a Province like ours here.
Mr. Speaker, as well, some of the major things are: $84.4 million in a
variety of cost-shared national highway system projects. I am certainly not
going to get into them, but I know the minister referred to them earlier today
and certainly talked about the overpass in Paradise. I guess it has been the
boundary between baymen and townies for a number of years. Mr. Speaker, me being
a baymen, most of the crowd where I come from certainly pass the overpass on
numerous occasions throughout the run of a day and a week and a month and a
year, so it is certainly good to see that, too, will benefit the people from my
area. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be great news for a number of areas.
Mr. Speaker, just in my area alone, I will speak to that just for a couple of
minutes - my time is running out we had a multi-year infrastructure plan
last year. We saw $22.9 million in multi-year infrastructure, which was over
three years. It was a significant amount of money for water and sewer, roads and
recreation facilities. There was a piece of it there for a town hall but, of
course, mainly it was the paving and the water and sewer and so on that was the
big issue. One of the biggest issues of all, which took up $9 million of that
component, was the place that we refer to at home as the Topsail treatment
plant.
Mr. Speaker, for some time now, I guess it was probably one of the first ones
around that did any kind of treatment. I am still not sure what treatment it
did. Anyway, there was a building built but it was a very minor treatment to the
sewer going out into Conception Bay. I guess it is probably one of our
provincial embarrassments today, Mr. Speaker. It is something that certainly had
to be dealt with.
Out of the roughly $23 million, $9 million of it was for the Topsail
treatment plant. Previously, we had built a new treatment plant in Kelligrews;
however, something had to be done to stop the raw sewage going out, so the town
and government agreed that $9 million would do the job. Unfortunately, when the
engineering work came back, there was now going to be over $15 million worth of
work needed.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be a part of the news conference today and sit in
when our Minister of Transportation and our Minister of Municipal Affairs
announced today that there will $6.3 million extra money for the Town of
Conception Bay South to move on. Mr. Speaker, that brings the total up now to
almost $30 million that we have received, the Town of Conception Bay South has
received, from this government. Mr. Speaker, I will stand here today and wait to
be corrected, but I know never of a time when the Town of Conception Bay South
has received a complement of $30 million for infrastructure.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it was a short time ago that the mayor and the municipal
officials out there met with us and different departments and explained how they
had $120 million worth of needs. Mr. Speaker, never did I dream that we would
achieve $30 million toward those goals in such a short period of time.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things I could get into in Finance and so
on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much.
There are a number of things I could get into, on what we have done in tax
areas that have benefitted the people of this Province under the Department of
Finance, under the guidance of the minister from Carbonear-Harbour Grace, but I
particularly wanted to hit on that district stuff today because it was a big day
for our district, one that we are very, very proud of. Like I said, we are into
$30 million now. Do we still have needs? Absolutely, we have needs. We have
transportation needs, we have recreation needs.
Mr. Speaker, all I can tell the people of Conception Bay South is that we are
getting there. I know some people in certain areas have been waiting quite a
while, but let me tell you that $30 million for a community the size of ours
does not come easy. I am delighted to say that we are getting there and we will
continue to work, Mr. Speaker, on achieving all of the goals and to meet all of
the needs of the residents of our town.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in debate here on
concurrence. We are dealing today with the Government Services Committee. I
always take a moment, of course, to explain to my friends Joe and Martha exactly
what the process is about, because they often wonder, what are they talking
about today?
Of course, everybody in the Province knows that we brought down the Budget
some weeks ago, back in March month, but as a part of the process the Budget
gets read here in the House by the Minister of Finance. Then there are a whole
bunch of Committees called Estimates Committees that meet outside of the House
over the next number of weeks, after the Budget is read, with people from all
parties. You sit down and on each of these days, for example, the Minister of
Finance would come in. If I am on that Committee, I would get to question the
Minister of Finance and his staff in his department, his deputy ministers, his
ADMs and directors, about anything that I would like to ask him about, the
detail that might be in that particular department. That happens with every
department. It happens with the Legislative Assembly, which is the budget
governing the House, all of the MHAs and the officers of the House, the
statutory offices. It happens with the Premier's office and so on. Today is a
part of that process.
Today we are dealing with certain departments that come under one of those
Committees called the Government Services Committee. Finance comes under it;
Government Services comes under it; Transportation and Works; Labrador and
Aboriginal Affairs; and Intergovernmental Affairs departments all fit under this
particular Committee that we are going to do today. It takes three hours in the
House, and people from both sides get up and have their say over the course of
that three hours and, at the end of it, that concludes that piece of the Budget,
and hopefully by tomorrow night, if things go as planned, we will be doing the
final votes on the budgets. We did one Committee last Thursday; we are doing one
today and one tomorrow. We have some loose ends we have to tie up besides that
tomorrow night, and then we will be ready for the final vote on the budgets.
Now, that is not to say that nobody has been spending any money in the
Province, because obviously we did another process earlier on called
Supplementary Supply which gave the government some authority or Interim
Supply, excuse me some half or one-third of the money, usually, back before
March 31 so we could send out the cheques that might accrue and be required from
the first of April onwards. So nobody has to fear that they are still waiting
for a paycheque because we are in here debating in the House. That was dealt
with in Interim Supply, so they have that.
I would like to comment on the Estimates Committees because that is a very
important process, and unfortunately it is not done in the openness and
accountability that it should be. We have come a long way in this Province in
the last eight or nine years when it comes to letting people see how the system
works, letting people know who speaks, who does not speak, what they speak
about, because it helps the people make their own decisions and determinations
as to what is happening in the House and who seems to say what is on their mind
and stand up for themselves and their districts and so on. That is why it is
important, but you do not see that because it is not televised, and I have
always been a strong proponent. I was here when we first brought cameras into
the House of Assembly, voted for it, and was a strong proponent for it, and I
believe that everything that goes on in the House of Assembly should be
televised. All of these Estimates Committees, I do believe, or the vast majority
of them, took place in the House of Assembly. It takes place right here, usually
in the mornings or in the evenings when the House in full is not sitting, so
there is no reason physically why we cannot use the House of Assembly to do it.
The same equipment that you are using now to watch me on TV in this Province can
be used in Estimates. There is no reason in the world it cannot be done. The
only thing is that there is a certain cost associated with it, to buy the air
time; but, given the importance, I would submit, of how important it is for
people to have a true understanding of how the government works, that should be
televised, and it is not.
I will give you an example why it should be televised. We have thirty minutes
a day, whenever the House is open, called Question Period, and we come in here
in Opposition and we ask questions of the minister. Now, anybody in this
Province who has watched knows that it is called Question Period for a reason,
because it is not answer period. We know that there are very few answers that
come from the government ministers when we ask questions here. Some people have
even called me after the House some days and said: Did I hear correctly? Did you
get up and ask such-and-such this question? Yes. Did he say such-and-such back?
Yes. Well, what does one have to do with the other? I said, absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
In fairness to some ministers and, by the way, those ministers are seen
as being informed, enlightened, and they do not mind telling it like it is. If
some ministers in this House have to stand up and say something, they do not
mind doing it. I would say that is the best way to be. If you do not know it,
say, I don't know it; I will go find the answer for you and get back to you.
If you do know it, why not say it? You do not have to sugar-coat it.
The Minister of Justice usually gets up; he does not fudge it about. If you
ask him a question, if he has the answer, he will tell you. He does not
bamboozle you very often. Sometimes he might get a bit long-winded, but not too
often. If he doesn't know, he will also tell you he does not know, but you can
be sure he is going to come back within the next day or two and tell you what
the answer was. That is what you call a flow of information.
Then you get other ministers who stand up and you wouldn't know but you
asked a question about the moon and they are telling you about something that
has nothing to do with the moon.
AN HON. MEMBER: (lnaudible).
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Absolutely. They do not have a clue what they are
talking about.
That is not lost on the public. The public knows the ministers who know their
stuff and the ministers who do not know their stuff. That is why I like
Estimates; because, in Estimates, the way it works is, if I am sitting over here
in the Estimates Committee and I ask the minister a question - it works two
ways, because it works to the minister's benefit as well. The ministers have
their full staff, and if they do not know something they can tell you: Excuse
me, ADM or DM, or such-and-such, can you give me the information? You get an
immediate follow of information, if it exists.
Sometimes they have to still go and put the information together, and they
always say: No problem, we will send it along to you. At least you get an
answer. If you do not get the answer, you can say: That is not right. Why are
you bluffing me? That is not the answer. Or, if you want to go back with another
answer, you can do it. You are not restricted like you are in Question Period,
where the minister knows that if he or she gets up and gives a little fluff
answer, oh, well, they are going to move on from me now because there is only
thirty minutes in Question Period anyway.
They cannot do that in Estimates, and that is why I am a strong advocate of
the Estimates being televised, because then you see what is truly going on. You
cannot hide behind Question Period. You cannot hide behind the Speaker, who
might sit there with a stopwatch and say, okay; the question was thirty seconds
so the answer is going to be forty-five. There is none of that then. You really
see who knows their stuff.
It is also good because Estimates quite often gives you a lot of information
that you can make use of. I have learned a lot of things over the last number of
years in Estimates Committees that have been helpful to my district,
particularly when it comes to programs. I might be questioning the Minister of
ITRD, for example - in fact, I remember this year I was questioning the Minister
of Business and an issue came up and I knew there was someone who was interested
in pursuing an activity. I asked the Minister of Business: Look, what do I do?
What is the process? What door should we knock on, or what number should we
call?
Right then and there the answer was given. Sure enough, I have been told
since then, only a couple of weeks ago, that officials in that department met
with those people. Now, that is what it is all about. It is not a case of saying
I am not going to tell you. It is public information, and the more public it is
the more people benefit from it.
What is the point of having a Department of Business with x millions of
dollars in it, if the MHAs who usually have their ear to the ground, usually
know what is going on, who people quite often approach for some information, do
not get that information? It is not about hiding away. It is about putting all
the information out there so that everybody can get it.
Anybody who has read The Telegram in the last number of weeks also has
noted that the media follow this thing - and it is not only The Telegram.
I have heard, in this session alone, there were at least five stories that came
out of CBC morning news as a result of things that were asked and told in the
Estimates Committees, five stories that the public might never have ever heard
of before. I have seen at least three or four references in The Telegram
by way of editorials, sometimes in the Jeers and Cheers section, about what
questions were asked and how certain ministers responded.
Can you imagine that if the media are picking up on this stuff because
that is their job, in the media; they are taking the time to pay attention to
what is going on, even though it is not on television can you imagine how
much more informed the public would be if it was televised? We are already to
the point here where I understand the House is now going to be rebroadcasting
Question Period at certain times. There might be certain other things that we do
in the House that we are going to rebroadcast. Why? Because there is an interest
in it. A lot of people like to hear Question Period, and all they get of
Question Period sometimes is a little snippet that might come on the evening
news, and if you were working and you missed the evening news, you missed it.
Yet, people want to be informed so they are going to be rebroadcast, and I think
that is a very good thing. I think that is a very good thing indeed.
That is the process of Estimates, but it is not complete. It is far from
complete, and it will not be complete until we get the true openness and we get
it televised. I do not know why government is hung up on this. I have been
preaching it for the last five or six years and nobody seems to get the take-up
on it, why we should do it. I do not know; maybe the ministers might figure that
they would be embarrassed, or what the situation is, but obviously they are not
interested.
The other comment I would like to make about openness and tying in to
debating here in this House, I would like to refer in particular to the
commentary that the Minister of Health and Community Services made last week
here in this House. He made it on May 5, which was a Tuesday, and I refer you in
particular to page 779 of Hansard when he said, and I will quote, "Each and
every one of us, regardless of the party we represent, have a responsibility to
come here and represent our constituents, yes, but we also have a responsibility
to participate in debate, participate in discussion in a reasonable way, not to
fear monger, not to stretch facts, not to try to create illusions that something
is different than what it is, play cheap political games in here, take shots at
people, try to discredit individuals with a view of trying to bolster your own
political fortunes and future."
A long sentence, but it is one full sentence that he made. I have no problem
with that sentence, and I am not pointing it out from a critical point of view,
but I am going to pick out of it because some members got upset when the issue
was raised about who stood up and said what in this House, and what right you
had to do it, or the fact to suggest that you were trying to embarrass anybody,
because I made no bones about it. If I have something to say I will say it, if
it concerns my district and my constituents, or if it in the public interest and
it has to be said I have an obligation to say it. As the minister said, you have
to take
part in the debate. You have to represent your constituents.
Now, some people got upset because there were certain members in here, I
would submit, who did not represent their constituents. You can call it what you
want, and you can say that it is trying to make someone look bad, but it is a
fact. I did not create the facts.
I will give you an example when it first came up. It was when I got up on the
dialysis petitions for my district in Southwestern Newfoundland and somebody
said I mentioned about Labrador West, and the Member for Labrador West did not
get up with petitions. That is up to him, if he gets up or not. It is not my
business to tell the gentleman who represents Labrador West whether he gets up
in this House or not, but it is noted to me that he did not. That is his call
whether he gets up or not.
The MHA for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune - I got up and gave a petition in this
House seven times on the issue of the lack of a proper medical clinic on the
South Coast in the communities of Ramea, Grey River and Franois. Now, folks, I
do not represent Franois, but they came with a petition signed. In fact, the
petition that I used on the day in question, every single name on it is a
resident of Franois. What are you supposed to do when you have the petition
not my district but the same ferry service services all three communities?
Am I supposed to say: Well, I am not going to put in that one because I do not
represent Franois? I do not think that is prudent. I do not think that is
respectful of the people who signed the petition. I do not care if their member
wants to get up. If they wanted to, I can give him the petition. Let him stand
up if they want to.
By the way, there is nothing democratically wrong with standing up to
represent your district on an issue that concerns your district. It does not
mean you are being disrespectful to the party of which you are a member. It does
not mean you are being disrespectful to the government. All it means is that you
are bringing the concerns of your district to the House of Assembly. I got up
when I was a member of government and brought petitions. Government did not
always agree with me, but it did not relieve me of the responsibility to stand
up and bring it to the House. In fact, I think if a member did that you would be
all the more respected. You wanted it in there, you got it in there. I got on my
feet and I did it for you. Now, unfortunately, the government of which I am a
part disagrees with that, but that does not get you in any hot water. I think
that only gets you a bit more respect from your constituents if you stand up for
them. So instead of ducking the issue stand up for them.
We had the issue here, the member here for Port de Grave, my colleague, day
after day after day got up in this House and brought in petitions from Pilley's
Island and Long Island about the causeway. He does it because he is asked. He
did not go out and look for petitions. People come to you with petitions and
say: Look, our member will not do it or whatever, or they do not want to give it
to their member but we want it done. Are we supposed to say no, no, we cannot do
that? We cannot do that because that is not our district. My advice in that
situation would be, go to your own member. If the member asked me I would say
get up and do it. So what if you cannot get your causeway, but you have to try.
That does not take away. That does not mean you are disrespectful or do not
respect your government of which you are a part. There are some things you ought
to be able to do your conscience on in here. You should do your conscience on
everything in here.
That is like the seniors' home. The Member for Port de Grave got up in this
House, and everybody here sort of a little laugh every time he did it because he
did it so often, that was a seniors' home for the Carbonear area. There are
lots of people in this House besides him where their districts are going to
benefit from this seniors' home. There is the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde,
the Member for Bellevue, Harbour Main-Whitbourne, Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and
the
MR. BUTLER: Port de Grave.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Port de Grave. Five or six districts that are going
to benefit from that, and sure enough, they decided in the budget this year, the
government in its wisdom, that they are going to put a seniors' home in that
area.
Now, that did not mean all of these members could not get up and speak about
that in a petition if they wanted to. The Member here from Port de Grave got up
and did it. Well, he certainly got credit for it. There were letters to the
editor and everything else. Front page story, Member for Port de Grave gets
seniors' home for his district. I thought it was pretty good. He was up
ranting and raving for six or seven months, and sure enough, they got it.
There is the issue of Barachois Brook, the issues out there. The Member for
Stephenville East, there have been petitions entered in this House from
Stephenville East. That does not mean that somebody else should not get up. What
do you do with these issues that are out in the public domain? Are we supposed
to say no, because we do not represent your district, we cannot do it? Of course
not, and we will continue to stand up on it.
It is like the Minister of Transportation and Works. He says more from the
seat of his pants sitting in his chair than he ever did on his feet in the
House. All you need do is sit here and listen to Question Period.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, boy. (Inaudible) read Hansard.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: They do not like to have questions asked. Again
today, I say, here we are on TV and I mentioned his name, and the Minister of
Transportation and Works strikes up again. Strikes up again! Cannot get a word
in edgewise here, if it is anything to do with any but God forbid, if it
ever raises a question, because whenever you raise a question, the Minister of
Transportation, he does not like that. He does not like for you to ask questions
because even if he got the answer sometimes and I am sure he does. I am sure
there are times when he has had, Mr. Speaker, that he has had the answers, but I
just think sometimes he just does not want to give them. You talk about the
crack shots that come across, but I would like to get some explanation
sometimes, a question is asked, get up and give the explanation. You are not
fooling anybody, there is only forty-eight of us in here. Get up and convince
the 480,000 or 500,000 plus that is out there where you stand. Never mind
chirping across the hallway. If you have something to say, you should get up and
say it. Yet, in Question Period, what do we hear in here all the time? Chirp,
chirp. Chirp, chirp.
Anyway, maybe some just want to chirp and others do not want to get up and
speak, but as I say, this is what it is all about here. As long as I get
petitions I am going to stand up in this House and speak and I am sorry if any
member who does not want to get up and it has impacted their district and they
are offended, that is tough, because they are going to have to be offended.
Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity. I just had to set the record straight
on that because that was bothering me, to think that because somebody commented
on that, that we might be doing that intentionally. I have the paperwork and the
suitcase full of petitions to show that it did not come from me, but I will darn
well bring the suitcase in here and present them over the course of the next
number of months.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the concurrence
debate of the Government Services Estimates. I will try not to repeat what my
colleague from Conception Bay South said or what the Opposition House Leader
said, but I did want to talk briefly about what departments are in the general
government sector and also I wanted to talk a little bit about the expenditures
that are not included in the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, there is about five or six departments that are in the general
government sector. The expenditures of those departments total about $1.5
billion, so we are speaking about a significant amount of money. One of the
points that I would like to make, which I have not heard anybody else mention,
is the fact that all of the expenditures of government, all of the projected
expenditures are not included in the Budget. Actually, there are about $500
million that are excluded from the Budget. They are what you call statutory
payments and they are provided for by statute. They are not included in the
supply bill. So the actual supply bill will be about $6.5 billion. The other
$500 million we paid out under provision of statute. These payments are
authorized by acts of the Legislature and they are primarily interest on
government debt. That would be the bulk of it but there are a couple of
interesting statutory payments that are made, a couple of things that I would
like to mention that are not included in the Estimates and are going to be paid
regardless of whether the Estimates are approved or not. The first is the
Comptroller General's salary. That is provided for by statute and is not
included in the supply bill, and also the salary of the Auditor General.
Mr. Speaker, one of the matters I would like to discuss during the debate
this afternoon relates to pensions. I know the Minister of Finance did speak to
pensions when he spoke to the amendment that was in the House this sitting under
the Pensions Funding Act, but pensions is such a big issue for the government
and, of course, for the entire Province, for the public service pensioners. As I
say, it is a major issue not just for this government but it has been a major
issue for all governments since the 1970s. All provincial governments,
regardless of whether they are Liberal or Progressive Conservative, try to come
to terms with the issues facing the public service pensions.
Mr. Speaker, the pension fund, what we call the Pooled Pension Fund, which is
all of the Public Service Pension Plans, was created in 1981. One of the points
I would like to make is that one of the major achievements that this government
has had is the inroads that it has made in addressing the unfunded pension
liability of the public service pensions.
I can relate this back directly to the Estimates in that the Minister of
Finance, when he spoke on Budget day, indicated that there was an amount of $383
million relating to the Public Service Pension Plan, and part of that would be
interest on the unfunded liability but the other part would be the writedown in
investments in the pension plan; because, as we all know, in the global economic
crisis, pension plans are taking what we would call a real hit in that the
investments in the plans in many, many plans - have decreased significantly.
As a result, many plans are going to have either a shortfall, or the shortfall
that they had is going to be increased quite significantly.
I would like to indicate that this government has made significant inroads in
addressing the unfunded pension liability, and I would just like to throw out a
couple of numbers that would indicate the significant progress that this
government has made.
Mr. Speaker, when this government took over in 2003 the unfunded pension
liability in the Public Service Pension Plans was almost $4 billion. The last
set of financial statements that were released by the Province showed that the
unfunded pension liability was now $1.5 billion, so that is quite a significant
drop. We have gone from almost $4 billion down to $1.5 billion.
One of the ways we have done that is that special payments have been made by
this government into those pension plans to increase or to improve their
financial viability. Over the past five years - this number will probably
astound a lot of people - there has been an extra $3.5 billion put into the