March 15, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 2
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we call on the routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the Gallery today His Worship, Mayor Walwin Blackmore, from the town of Grand Falls-Windsor, on behalf of all members.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the Orders of the Day, I wonder if the Members of the House would allow me, for a minute, just to make a comment on this document we see in front of us. As the Chair of the Committee, I have already spoken to the Vice-Chair, so if members would agree?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. LUSH: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not taken advantage of the time given me.
As the Chair of the Committee on the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly that were presented here in January, I think by the Vice-Chairman in my absence, I just want to say that I think all members would want to go on record to congratulate the Speaker and his staff for the expeditious and efficient manner in which they have compiled the latest changes to the Standing Orders, Standing Orders which I believe probably are now in line with progressive parliaments in the British Commonwealth.
I want to congratulate your office and your staff for having done this in such an expeditious manner and done it so tastefully. It fits in with the decorum, it fits in with the colors of our House. I do not know if we are counting on more rules to be added because it looks like we have lots of space here for that.
MR. TULK: It is a place where you put your bills.
MR. LUSH: Yes, I was about to say that. It is a place for members to put their bills. They have changed the size. I am told that this is the most economical size, so they are keeping in mind economies, so it is a neat little binder. I am also told that there are some tabs coming so that members can easily identify the topics to separate the rules from the other items here: the Speaker's book, for example, and other things.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to congratulate your office for this very efficient and effective job done on a very timely basis.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I too, as Vice-Chairman of the Committee, would certainly like to commend the Speaker's office and particularly the staff, even Committee members too, because there were a lot of hours punched on this during the summertime in particular (inaudible) to provide this. I am not sure if the size of it reflects how much is going to be on the government agenda. This is just the fall session alone, the binder I had for the bills there, so it does not look like we are going to be doing very much government business. We will be spending more time on rules and orders.
Once again we pass on our thanks and I echo the concerns of the Chairman of the Committee there on the work done by the Speaker's office.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know the Chairman of the Committee was unavoidably absent when the report was presented to the House. Not only reiterating his own comments, but in the magnificent presentation of the changes in the rules I think it is in order to thank the Chairman for his excellent job in chairing the Committee which sat, as the Vice-Chairman said, over the summer. It was a difficult Committee.
I like the rule book. I'm not sure I like all the contents, but we have certainly made some significant progress in modernizing the rules of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with the members' statements, all members will note that our new rules contain a Standing Order which is new. That provides for members' statements. However, it does not set out any guidelines or rules to conduct this procedure. What the Chair would like to do is put some guidelines in place. Before I do that, I would like to have an opportunity to consult with members and have their input before I put rules in place that we should follow in this procedure. For today, I will just alternate from across the House as members stand.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update members on a project in my district which is helping to control and manage lobster stocks, truly a positive, practical and enlightening ecosystem management initiative.
The Eastport Lobster Fishermen's Protection Committee was formed in 1994 to investigate declines in lobster stocks. It has implemented conservation measures such as the closing of the two prime lobster areas to a commercial fishery, the V-Notching of egg-bearing female lobsters, encouragement of lobster fishers to strictly respect catch regulations and eliminate excess fishing and poaching activity that was taking place.
The committee enlisted the help of Memorial University, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada, to see if these measures were helping maintain the local stock at sustainable levels. With funding from the biology department at MUN -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up. He had one minute.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. LUSH: By leave, Mr. Speaker. Again, I will not take advantage of that. I just wanted to say that, with funding from the biology department at Memorial University, these stakeholders worked together and during a test in 1997 caught, tagged and released the lobsters.
Mr. Speaker, the project has seen lobster stocks recover and is receiving support from within and outside the Province. It focused on the fishery of the future, educating our young people to understand the fisheries from both a scientific and fisheries perspective.
I congratulate all stakeholders for their success. If members are interested in learning more about this, there is a film called Towing the Line, chronicling this project and members should do this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today and take the opportunity here in the House to bring greetings to a couple in my district in St. Vincent's, St. Mary's Bay who, on March 17th, will celebrating their 50th Wedding Anniversary. Mr. Patrick and Mrs. Beatrice Moriarity were married in St. Patrick's Church in St. John's on March 17, 1950. He worked in the forestry unit overseas for about six years and Mrs. Moriarity stayed at home to raise their children. They have three children: Kevin, Ed and Mary. They also have three foster children whom they consider their own: Deborah, Sandra and Liz Snow. Mr. Moriarity also has a daughter who lives overseas in England, Connie Rainer.
Mr. Moriarity is, at the present time, in hospital here in St. John's. He is a very ill man who, at the present time, is in a coma.
We want to extend congratulations to them on their 50th Anniversary and wish their family well with their present situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform the hon. Members of this House of a major sporting event which will be taking place in Stephenville this summer, the Commonwealth 2000 Judo Championships. This will be the first Commonwealth Judo Championships ever to be held in Canada. The championships will begin with the opening ceremonies in Corner Brook on July 1st. The competitions will be held at Stephenville Dome from July 2nd to July 3rd, and the championships will be followed by an international training camp that will run from July 4th to July 8th.
The Commonwealth 2000 Judo Championships is an event which will showcase Stephenville and Western Newfoundland and all it has to offer. It is expected that over 300 athletes, coaches and officials from over twenty countries will be in the region for those days. With high-caliber international athletes attending, people from all over Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the rest of Canada and parts of the United States are expected. Everyone is waiting to welcome you to the Commonwealth 2000 Judo Championships.
Thanks you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to pay tribute to Betty Howell. She is the forty-eight year old woman who lost her life on January 12th when the vehicle she was driving slipped on ice on Petty Harbour Road and went into a pond. Betty had a way of helping people and making friends. As in life, she has continued to do that. As a result of her tragic car accident, a guardrail has been approved for that area, a guardrail that the residents have been fighting for for some time.
Betty's parents had celebrated their 50th Wedding Anniversary just the weekend before her accident, and many of her family had come home from away to join the celebrations. Betty was to be married this coming weekend to Paul Lee of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove. I have been asked by the family of Betty Howell to thank the three men who had risked their lives in trying to save Betty's life, when they entered the water: Mr. Richard Clarke Jr. of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. T. OSBORNE: - Mr. Brian Chafe of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, and Mr. Robert Clements of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove.
Betty's brother Bill is in the gallery today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to offer congratulations to Arlene O'Keefe of Paradise, who is the newly crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador. This tremendous honor was bestowed on Miss O'Keefe this past weekend, and the entire community of Paradise is proud and excited over this young lady's accomplishments.
To achieve this goal, Miss O'Keefe was judged on her poise, fitness, academics, personality and a series of interviews. When judging was completed, Miss O'Keefe accumulated the most points and was successfully crowned over thirty other competitors.
It is interesting to note that of the final ten competitors, four were students from Holy Spirit High School in Manuels. Of the four finalists, two were from Holy Spirit High School in Manuels. Miss O'Keefe's hard work, determination and perseverance is a credit to her school, community and her Province. She is not only a positive role model to young females in Paradise but she is also an inspiration to us all. I request that this hon. House send congratulations to Miss O'Keefe on her reign as Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, and wish her the best of luck in all her future endeavors.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The clock says that the six minutes has elapsed.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave? Okay.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was my pleasure yesterday, March 14, to participate in Literacy Day at Mary Queen of the World School on Topsail Road, in the District of Waterford Valley. Mary Queen of the World is a Kindergarten to Grade VI school with a total student population of 500, a teacher allocation of twenty-nine, including principal Jim Brazil.
This school has a strong school council and a commitment to excellence. Many volunteers representing industry, community organizations, municipal and provincial politicians and the media gave of their time yesterday to share part of their day with these young students. These twenty-two community volunteers helped to make Literacy Day a tremendous success. I wish to acknowledge the gratitude of the students and their teachers for the way the volunteer readers helped bring true meaning to the joys of reading. All stories were selected for their content and message; however, each reader also communicated an important statement by their presence, namely, that reading is a part of a successful lifestyle.
Mr. Speaker, the teachers and students of Mary Queen of the World wish to -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
By leave?
MR. H. HODDER: - thank the many volunteers who made Literacy Day 2000 such a memorable and tremendous success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to make a member's statement.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House - I think it was mentioned here yesterday about the Labrador Winter Games taking place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The Premier and all MHAs from Labrador were present Sunday night at the opening ceremonies. It was really heartfelt to watch all of the athletes, all of the young people from different places in Labrador, coming together to participate in the athletic events that will take place. I think even more important than the athletic events, given the vastness of Labrador, the geographical range and the cultural differences - I think it is more important for people who live in Labrador than the athletes themselves - are the friendships that will be developed over the next week. To the organizers who put in such work in organizing the event, and of course to the coaches and the athletes who are participating, it is going to be a great week and we look forward to going back there.
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has announced a new Call for Bids for the Province's offshore area. There will be fourteen parcels up for bid this year, with three located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, four in the Carson/Bonnition Basin, six in the South Whale Basin and one adjacent to the Newfoundland West Coast area. This amounts to 2,251,670 hectares of land.
As you are aware, the 1999 Call for Bids resulted in a record land sale, attracting work expenditure commitments in excess of $192 million, an increase from the previous high of $175 million in 1998. This is truly indicative of the confidence and strength of our offshore industry.
With Hibernia producing 170,000 barrels per day, Terra Nova to begin production within a year and White Rose and Hebron-Ben Nevis moving forward, we are experiencing major growth in our petroleum sector. All of these fields are located in the Jeanne d-Arc Basin which has been the area of the offshore where activity has been focused to date.
Last year, industry acquired parcels in a new basin, the Flemish Pass, and we are optimistic that drilling will occur there in the near future. This year, industry is continuing the trend of moving into new areas with lands being posted and the Carson/Bonnition and South Whale basins for the first time. This should lead to further exploration of these basins as well.
I am optimistic that a new wave of drilling in these relatively untested will provide the new discoveries that will lead to a continued expansion of our petroleum sector.
Companies interested in bidding on land parcels must submit their work expenditure bids by November 15, 2000, to the C-NOPB. Winning bids are based solely on the amount of money a bidder plans to commit to exploration on the parcel during the first five years.
The 2000 Call for Bids is another opportunity for companies to invest in a province that has a stable economic base, significant natural resources and development potential, a dedicated and competent work force, world-class research facilities and $1.2 billion worth of onshore infrastructure for our offshore oil and gas industry.
We look forward to another successful round of bidding and government remains confident that industry will continue to invest in our Province's offshore area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to this statement, there is a sentence here that I would just like to repeat. It states: "...Hibernia producing at 170,000 barrels per day, Terra Nova to begin production within a year and White Rose and Hebron-Ben Nevis moving forward, we are experiencing major growth in our petroleum sector."
Perhaps the most burning issue in the Province today, and the question being asked by most people today, is: Why is it, when we have such a growing offshore industry, that the benefits of this Province, the royalties, the taxes of this Province, are as minimal as they are? Secondly, why is it that the consumers in this Province continue to pay the highest with respect to petroleum products than any other citizens of this country?
So I say, Mr. Speaker, this is the challenge that faces this government, and it is incumbent on this government to ensure that the people of this Province are protected and are treated fairly with respect to this very important industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I did not have an advanced copy of the statement, I am certainly pleased to see a new bidding process underway. However, what is important in this statement is that we are only talking about work expenditure bids. When are we going to see the day when people who are getting access to our offshore oil and gas are going to actually pay money to the people who own the resource to get access and to get leases to these resources? This is a question that needs to be asked again and again of this government, not only on royalties, but on bids and every aspect of our offshore benefits.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to update the House of Assembly on government's success in ensuring a continued poultry industry in this Province and the jobs related to it.
As Members of the House are aware, on Friday past, the receivers for IPL Group of Companies, Ernst and Young, with the support of the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Province, were successful in finalizing a sale of the company's assets to the Atlantic Co-operative Alliance (ACA).
ACA has in excess of seventy years experience in all facets of the poultry business and brings to this Province the necessarily expertise and new capital required to grow our industry. With a significant investment of $11 million, which includes a commitment of $3 million towards further capital improvements, ACA has now become the largest poultry producer in Atlantic Canada.
That is good news for the government, for the consumers and for the businesses that will benefit from an industry with sales of $40 million annually. It is also great news for the 400 employees who depend on this industry to make a living.
The poultry industry will survive and prosper under ACA's leadership. We insisted that there had to be a private sector solution. We believe that ACA is that solution.
Government went to considerable lengths to support IPL. We provided grants, guaranteed loans, purchased grain and provided IPL and its shareholders with time to find an investor or purchaser. Unfortunately, IPL could not succeed without more financial support from government. The shareholders are, however, fortunate in that the sale of assets to ACA was conditional upon the Farm Credit Corporation agreeing to write off approximately $4.2 million owed by shareholders. This debt, which was accumulated before the creation of IPL, is now written off.
Members will recall that subsidization of the chicken industry was costing the people of the Province approximately $8 million annually. If we had closed down the industry in 1997, the cost to the Province would have been substantially more than our commitment to IPL at that time.
ACA has not requested any additional financial support from government. We have agreed to write off $13 million in outstanding debt. In return, ACA has provided a firm commitment to grow our poultry industry, a commitment to new investment, a commitment to employment and a commitment to serve the agricultural community with grain and feed. ACA will be licensed to use our chicken quota but ownership has and will continue to be retained and controlled by the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome ACA to this Province and to acknowledge their confidence in the poultry industry. As well, I want to thank our colleagues who have worked on this matter and our public servants who, over the last year, have worked steadfast with the goal that we could indeed continue a poultry industry in this Province. Their commitment has been instrumental in getting us to where we are today.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement beforehand. I was very glad to see that a solution has been found to this very important problem that we had with IPL and the chicken industry.
We must also realize that with the injection of $25 million in the last three years there are still a lot of questions in people's minds involving the whole deal in the last three years. Even though the minister is saying that ACA is a solution, it only appears to be a solution.
I hope this industry is self-supporting and I hope that government does not have to put any more money into this industry in this Province in the future. I think that with all this money that government has put in - there still has been $13 million put into this industry as of today - I think the people of this Province deserve to know the things that happened in the last three years leading up to this deal. I think there are a lot of questions in people's minds and my mind that I have to ask the minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HUNTER: I think, as critic for this department, I will be asking the questions and get to the truth of what was going on the last three years.
Also, I do welcome the ACA into the Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we are very pleased to see that the poultry industry and the jobs associated with it stay in this Province, we are disappointed to see yet another asset go outside the control of the Province for a dollar, like the Marystown Shipyard did a couple of years ago.
On the issue of subsidy, let me say this. The countries with the strongest economies in the world have the highest level of agricultural subsidies. We do need a food industry in this Province, we need to grow our own food, we need to produce our own food, and have some control over the kind of food that we eat. I am not opposed to subsidy. The level of it obviously may be a question from time to time. We need to have an agriculture industry and we should have had a made in Newfoundland solution.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to announce the formation of a Working Group to address shellfish asthma in Newfoundland and Labrador fish processing plants. While reports and incidents of shellfish asthma have been around for some time, it is clear that with the tremendous growth in shellfish processing in our Province over the past couple of years, the incidents have been increasing.
The Working Group that I am announcing today will be chaired by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Occupational Health and Safety for my department, and will also include representatives from the Fish Food and Allied Workers, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Health and Community Services, and the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.
The Working Group will be meeting in the very near future to develop an action plan to address shellfish asthma in processing plants around the Province.
The primary objective of this working group will be to consult with industry and the workers to ensure that all measures that can be taken will be taken, to minimize the adverse effects of shellfish asthma on plant workers in this Province while still permitting our plants to operate and provide valuable employment in areas throughout the Province.
Over the past several months, my department has been working with other departments, agencies and stakeholders to address the serious issue of shellfish asthma. I would like at this time to express my appreciation to the leaders of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers - I see Mr. Anstey here today; I am not sure if Mr. O'Reilly is here - and the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador for their cooperation and support of this initiative. I am confident that with their involvement we will be able to address to the fullest extent possible, the serious concern of shellfish asthma in processing plants.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just this past year we saw the export value of fish products in this Province exceed $1 billion. In excess of half of that production, that export value, is related to the production of shellfish in this Province.
While we continually hear the minister and his colleagues talk about the importance of quality going into the marketplace - with which nobody would disagree - we should also be cognizant of the quality of air that people who work in our plants breathe.
I welcome this news today, but I say to the minister that your department was issued concerns about this problem in excessive of ten years now. For ten years your department has been aware that there has been a major problem with shellfish asthma. Here we are, two weeks from the opening of another crab-processing season, and the minister is talking about putting forward a working group. As important as that is, Minister, I don't think you need a working group to tell you that a problem exists in the processing plants of this Province today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, stop the procrastination. Put people out there to identify the problem.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Allow it to happen, and allow our workers to go to work in a safe and hazardous-free environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to commend the minister for responding so promptly to my call several weeks ago for a task force on this issue, with the very players that he has announced as being participants today. I hope that this task force, this working group, will identify and see that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission recognizes shellfish asthma as an industrial disease and finds a solution to this problem so that the people who work in our plants don't have to suffer from this disease.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, 4-H members and leaders will celebrate Provincial 4-H Week from March 11-17, 2000. 4-H is an international youth organization involving more than seven million members in eighty countries around the world.
This organization has been bringing the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador together since 1937, teaching them leadership, community and life skills.
The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is proud to support 4-H through the provision of funding and a departmental support staff who administer the programs and teach leadership skills.
The Province now has nineteen 4-H clubs involving youth from the ages of ten to twenty-one, as well as the junior program for ages five to nine. From 1999 to 2000, membership has increased by 14 per cent -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat. Today is Wednesday, of course, and it is now 2:30 p.m. We have to have Question Period.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the last one we will do.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, membership has increased by 14 per cent and volunteer leadership has increased by 24 per cent, due largely to a recruitment drive in the past year.
Mr. Speaker, 4-H members learn public speaking and leadership skills. They have the opportunity to learn through travel and have an excellent scholarship program.
Recently, thirty-three senior 4-H members and twelve volunteer 4-H leaders gathered at Max Simms Memorial Camp, Bishops's Falls, to participate in a 4-H Senior Members Selection Weekend to provide training in interview skills, familiarity with the provincial 4-H program, and to select members to travel to various national and international events.
We urge the hon. Members of the House to support their local 4-H Clubs. In doing so, they are supporting the leaders of tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement. This is certainly a positive step for our youth in our Province, and I am certainly pleased to stand here today and support the minister and the department for the support of our youth in our Province today, particularly when you see the increase in membership by 14 per cent, and in the leadership by 24 per cent. That is certainly a positive move. I hope this continues and I hope that our youth, who are our future, do get involved in the outdoor experimental and education programs which are very important to develop their skills so that we can depend on them in our future.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HUNTER: I do support the 4-H Club and their leaders for our future for tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, too, support the government on this initiative. I think any investment in our youth is certainly an investment in our tomorrow. The 4-H Club has been around for a long time and they provide good services to young people, providing them with leadership skills, real life experiences, cultural experiences, and really broaden their horizons. I think it is fair to say that the camp mentioned in the statement, Camp Nipper, I have been there many times. It has excellent facilities -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: - and it is very appropriately named, too, by the way, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we said yesterday in the Speech from the Throne - we set out, I think, from our point of view, some criteria by which we will judge this government.
I have questions for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation today. With respect to the contract for the Labrador ferry service, why was it, five days before, that you saw fit to intervene and change the specifications for that contract, allowing a well-known Liberal group and supporters to have access to that contract?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon. member got his numbers; whether it was five, ten, fifteen, or what, he is out to lunch on that.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WOODFORD: If the hon. member wants it answered, I will answer it.
Having said that, I say to the hon. gentleman that this company has applied for an injunction. It is before the courts. We have had our hearings last week for three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and I do not intend to comment on it until (inaudible) passes down a judgement.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister another question with respect to the contract. It is standard operating procedure that any vessel coming from outside this country, before it comes into this country, that it meets a test; it is called the Canadian Steamship Industry, which is an arm of Transport Canada.
I would like to ask the minister this: When the contract was given to the company it was awarded to, why did not the provincial government request the agency that sets the standard to ensure that any vessel operating in Canadian waters meets that standard? Why was it that you did not request, or the government did not request, that that vessel - that the Canadian Steamship Industry did not look at that vessel to ensure that the safety of the vessel, how it operated, the vessel's integrity itself, would be up to or live up to Canadian standards? Why did you not send that vessel to that industry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of misstatements by the hon. member.
We have no contract signed with this group. We have a letter of conditional award offered to the group, no contract. Make that clear, no contract. In sending them a letter of conditional award we have outlined eight stipulations, including all that the member just asked for. I don't know where he is coming from but that is what we have done. No contract signed; it is a letter of conditional award. Get that clear.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the minister again - standard operating procedure. He is a minister of the Crown, acting in the best interest of the Crown, which is the people of the Province. Why did he not, before he awarded a conditional award - I would think that part of a conditional award for any contract of that nature would be to ensure -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the Speaker for a ruling on a point of order. I don't want to interrupt normally during Question Period, but the truth -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TULK: No, I really don't, but the truth is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, they are awfully excited after a convention on the weekend or something.
Mr. Speaker, under §409.(9), it says, "A question cannot deal..." - not to answer - "...with a matter that is before a court."
Under §410.(15), it says, "Questions should not offend the sub judice principle."
Mr. Speaker, I would ask -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TULK: No, seriously, I am not sure whether this is a question that is out of order or not but I would ask the Speaker for a ruling on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, is the hon. -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is obvious that any matter that is before the courts, the questions on that issue should not be raised; but I am not so sure what the matter is that is before the courts. The Chair is not aware of the -
MR. TULK: To the point of order, if I could, I think it is a matter that is before the court, that an injunction is being sought, and that there are hearings ongoing as to whether this contract was awarded in the right fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I think those questions are directly concerning - that question is before the court.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I cannot help but say that if we are confined to asking questions on public tendering or things before the court, we will never ask a question, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The question, Mr. Speaker, in my own defense, that I have asked to the minister has nothing to do with the court case. It has to do with asking the department, on an issue of regulation, that before awarding a contract, why did they not do a, b, c, d, or e, not what is before the court; why the department did not take precautionary action in a particular manner that is of public importance. That is the question that I ask.
Mr. Speaker, I might add as well that the Government House Leader knows full well the rules of the House and he is interrupting and trying to take this place on his back yet once again. We have seen it before. Beauchesne clearly spells out that if we have questions or points of order, that there is an opportunity to do so when Question Period is over. Question Period is the parliamentary time for the Opposition, not for the Government House Leader to take it on his back, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: On this matter, Mr. Speaker, to tell the hon. gentleman and to assure him that I am not trying to take up the time of the Opposition, whatever time this point of order takes, I will give him leave to pursue past the normal time for Question Period.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: No. Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is over there; he cannot have it both ways. He cannot stand over there -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, he cannot stand over there and accuse me of trying to take away the time from Question Period and have it both ways. I say to him, whatever this point of order takes - and he cannot take this place on his back either, any more than anybody else. There are rules to be followed and anybody, I say to him, as he knows - unless I have not taught him anything in the last four or five years - he knows any member has a right to rise on something that they consider to be a point of order, and in particular a point of order of this importance.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour for a ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will recess briefly to consult on this matter.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has reviewed the tapes of the questions that were put to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. From a review of the tapes, both questions that were asked, both clearly refer to a contract which I understand from the minister is now before the courts. Of course, Beauchesne is clear. It says that questions cannot deal with a matter that is before a court. Of course, the questions would be out of order on the basis that the matter that they referred to is now, I understand, before the court.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The questions were out of order in that they dealt with a matter that was before the court.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get clarification on the remaining time left in Question Period. I know the Government House Leader indicated that during the point of order, I think, there were roughly three minutes, in my estimation, gone when the point of order was raised. I am sure the Chair can clarify the amount and let us know what is remaining in Question Period.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's word - I have never doubted his word - that there were three minutes gone. That would mean there are twenty-seven minutes left.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question on this subject that has nothing to do with what is before the court. It is a standard matter of process. I would like to ask the minister: Before awarding any contract dealing with vessels in this Province, isn't it standard operating procedure for your department to ensure that before an award to a group, a company or an individual is given, that any vessel must have CSIA approval before it meets or comes into Canadian waters? If that is the case, why didn't you do it in this case?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, in this case -
AN HON. MEMBER: What case?
MR. WOODFORD: The member is asking about the process.
In that case, any ship - we bought one for the Bell Island run - anywhere in the Province, if we took a ship into this country, if she is a foreign flag, if she came in under a foreign flag, provided there is a provisional flag issued in the country where she is from. In this case, that was done. There does not have to be any CSIA approval until the ship is brought into this country by CSIA. For the hon. member's information, I would hope he would take that into consideration.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is going on here is that this government is playing fast and loose with the Public Tendering Act to reward their friends. That is all that is happening here!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister knows, and I will ask him again: Wouldn't he think that it would be his duty and his responsibility, as a minister of the Crown, to ensure that before any contract is awarded on any given issue, in particular on a case such as this, that CSIA approval should be met before that award is given? Would the minister stand and answer that, please?
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is a well-known rule in this House that you cannot do through the back door what you are unable to do through the front door.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: I would ask Your Honour that the hon. gentleman, at least himself, talk about what he means by "this case", because that is awfully confusing to any minister who has to answer a question.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: There is nobody confused about the questions that I am asking today on that side of the House because they know exactly what I am after, and they know that I am right.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, the Chair has already ruled that any reference to a case that was mentioned by the hon. member in the first instance cannot be asked in this House. I ask the hon. member to keep that in mind when he is putting questions to the minister.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: Will the Apollo be ready for the services on the Coast of Labrador this summer? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I said from the outset that we have a court case on the go in this particular tender. We spent three days down in the court. I gave evidence, as well as other people in the department. I do not intend to answer any other questions on this particular subject until the judge brings down his ruling.
When that is done, I will stand in this House and answer whatever questions, supposing they come from every member over there, every member of the media, or any person in this Province. I can answer the question on this particular subject.
Until then, I will make no other comment on this particular subject.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a pretty straightforward question that had nothing to do with the court case.
I asked him: Would the Apollo be ready for services on the Labrador run this summer? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that is before the courts. When that judgement is brought down, then the hon. member's question will be answered.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Will that vessel be ready for the Coast of Labrador, to provide services to the people of Labrador this summer? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I have every right to ask that minister that question. If he doesn't answer it, I have every right to ask him again, Mr. Speaker..
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member knows full well that he cannot repeat questions that have already been asked. The minister has answered it, and I believe the hon. member should get on with another question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are serious problems with the Apollo. Would the minister like to tell us what those problems are? Are they electrical? Is there a significant amount of asbestos in the Apollo that may hold it up in providing services to the Coast of Labrador this summer?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have said it once, probably twice, and I will say it again: When the judgement is brought down in this particular court case, the hon. member's question with regard to the Apollo on that run this year will be answered. Having said that, there will be a service on the Coast, on the Straits, this summer, regardless of what happens in this particular court case.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: A final question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that vessel inspection regulations were not even adhered to, that this government flew flagrantly in the face of the Public Tender Act, in view of the fact of what has taken place, will you call a commission or commission an inquiry into why the Public Tender Act has been so blatantly abused by this government?
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that gentleman has been ruled out of order on questions pertaining to a matter that is before the courts on a number of occasions this afternoon. If he persists, which I hope he won't, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you do the appropriate thing with him.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.
In February, the minister announced a signing bonus of $3,000 to new nurse graduates who would commit to work in this Province for one year. It now appears that this offer may not apply to all nurses who are graduating this year and who accept employment with health care boards.
I want to ask the minister: Can he explain why nurses, newly graduated ones this year, who accept positions in community health are being told they do not qualify for the bonus?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is news to me.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If it is news to him, he should contact the corporations and their human resource people and get the message out to them, because they do not know and they are given different information. I like to see that corrected, I say to the minister.
There are 160 new graduates this year. The St. John's Hospital Board said they could hire all of them. Only one-half have even applied for positions Province-wide, out of the new graduates this year - have even bothered to apply.
Yesterday, I spoke with a nurse who has five nursing friends who graduated last year and they are leaving before the end of the month to go to North Carolina. I know of many others who are doing exactly the same.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I want to say to the minister, his one-time bonus strategy is not working. I ask you, do you have another plan that can be more effective in solving the nursing crisis in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe there are a couple pieces of information I might offer that might be useful to the hon. member. It doesn't surprise me that what is actually a good news story in health care, he would describe as a bad news story. That has been the nature of his position as the Opposition health critic for some time.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that people like the Opposition critic for health were saying prior to the nurses' job fair that all 160 of these nurses were going to leave the Province, that none of them would actually work in Newfoundland and Labrador, that there was going to be a critical shortage, and the fact of the working conditions and the salaries; because he used the same information and the same words that were being put into the public domain by the president of the nurses' union. He parroted it all through the strike and the debates in this Legislature last spring, how terrible, how awful, how absolutely incredibly bad this government was in its treatment of nurses. Actually, they tried to drive any nurse that even wanted to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador out of the Province.
Now, with a one-time bonus that is having a very good impact, that instead of 160 graduating nursing leaving the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. GRIMES: - over 100 have decided to look for jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Anybody else - all of the boards, whether they be institutional boards or community services boards, are delighted by the fact that they have over 100 new graduates applying and wanting to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador for this next year. If he is suggesting -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will continue the answer, I am sure, with the next question.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, he has no plan; that is why he did not tell us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Nurses and other health care professionals do not have any faith that this government is going to do something to fundamentally stop driving people out of this Province and out of their professions. Drawing down four years from the federal government in one year -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him now to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, in light that the government is drawing down four years in one year - it will do nothing to keep nurses and health care professionals here. It will not even cover the operating deficit for last year. It is not even a band-aid, I say to the minister. When are you going to offer long-term solutions that give assurance to health care professionals that there is indeed a future for them here in our Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying in answer to the last question, the whole issue again when we talk about plans, I will tell you one thing, our plan is not to be like the Opposition critic and complain and gripe and moan and groan and go around and suggest that Newfoundland and Labrador is the worst place in the country and in the world to live, that we have the worst health care anywhere in the organized free world. Because that is his plan, to try to convince the residents and the health care professionals that we have that this is an awful place to live and work. That is his plan, because he is more interested in trying to get political gain out of the issue than dealing with things that are positive and constructive in trying to build our system in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, you will not hear any of that plan from this side of the House, you need not worry about; you can mark it down. When we have a success, when we have over 100 out of 160 graduates who decide to live here, despite the representations made from members like the Opposition critic -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Telegram of March 10 carried a story on the difference in gas prices in Newfoundland compared with other Atlantic provinces, and the Premier is quoted as saying, "All I can say to the oil and gas industry is that if they cannot defend the difference in price here compared to the difference in prices elsewhere, then they are inviting government to take some kind of regulatory role."
The Minister of Mines and Energy echoed the Premier's comments following this meeting with oil companies officials yesterday, and the former minister said much of the same thing several months ago.
The public should know who is driving up these prices, and I say to the Minister of Finance that if you cannot explain it, there should be a public inquiry to get to the truth.
My question to the Minister of Finance is: Will you call a public inquiry at which oil companies, Mr. Minister, would be required to defend the prices charged to the consumers of this Province, and equally, Mr. Minister, the government would be required to defend the windfall revenues it receives in taxation from the escalating oil and gas prices.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I am not of a mind at the moment to call for a public inquiry with respect to the issue of gas prices in the Province. What I am more interested in doing is to engage, on behalf of government, in a couple of activities, and that is first, in discussion with the producers of the product and the distributers of the product, find out what the facts are. To that extent we had a very successful meeting, I would term it, yesterday, myself and the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, with the oil companies. We are attempting to convey to the general public all of the information that we have available to us with respect to all of the nuances regarding the increase in petroleum product prices, and we take that responsibility very seriously. We will continue to do what we can to make sure that (a) the public is informed and (b) the public is protected to the extent that we can ensure it.
I said last week to the media that we, as a government, take this position, and it is a very clear and a very simple one. We believe that price increases, while they must be market driven and obviously are out there, must be held off to the last possible moment, they should be held to the lowest possible amount and, they should be held in place for the shortest period of time. That is our position -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - and that is our agenda, and that is the vein in which we are working on this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is the problem, Mr. Speaker, with this government's response on this issue. It has been coy, it has been cute. It has not dealt in response to the genuine concerns of the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: At times, Mr. Speaker, the government claims it may be the companies, and then government, through the Premier, suggest we need a form of regulation, when in fact the real problem here -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - is that the government has not come clean with the reality of taxation revenues equaling approximately one-half of the price of a litre of gas. I say, Mr. Minister, why not call a public inquiry so that all of the facts can be put on the table and the people of the Province can not only judge the companies, but this government itself?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has been a long time, and I really do not know what to make of it, but I will tell you, it was not yesterday that I was last called cute. I do not know on what basis the hon. member finds me to be in any way cute. I do not think I am that cute, quite frankly. I would be flattered if somebody else had a second opinion on that, and I hope probably before the Question Period is over somebody else can either validate the concept that I might be cute or otherwise dispel the notion altogether, because it concerns me and I am sure it concerns others.
To the substantive issue that he has raised , Mr. Speaker -
AN HON. MEMBER: Poll the audience.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is worth polling the audience on.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: To the extent that the question is serious, because Mr. Speaker, it is a serious question -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to quickly conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. Mr. Speaker, to the substantive part of the question with respect to the issue of laying out the facts about the tax component in our gas prices versus the tax components in the prices of other provinces in the country, that information is generally available. I'm prepared to make it available to the member, I'm prepared to make it available in the House.
Our rate is 16 ½ cents per litre. We are not the highest in the country. The highest is the Province of Quebec at point three-tenths of a cent higher than we are in the Montreal area, but the other rates are available to him as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is also to the Minister of Finance. When is he going to stop reaping the windfall profits from the increasing, escalating prices of oil and do something to give the Public Utilities Board, an objective body, the power to roll back unreasonable price increases?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about windfall profits that are accruing to the government. Let me put the record straight by saying the facts of the matter, first of all, are these.
We entered into, three years ago, with the Government of Canada, an arrangement to go into a blended sales tax system. As a result of that, we took a pre-determined amount of revenue for three years. So in fact, we are not getting any actual new dollars. Now as a result of the HST being on petroleum products, it is a fact that there is a small incremental amount of the price increase going toward HST which is being collected by Ottawa and which we may get an adjustment for some time beyond the end of this year. The fact of the matter is that even if we were getting extraordinary revenues the calculation of those extraordinary revenues, by my officials as given to me, indicates that it probably would no more than, if in fact it does, offset the increased cost that we, as a government, are having on account of having to deliver public services in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has told me his department alone is spending this year about $3 million more to clear snow, to run plows, to heat buildings and to service ferries than it would have if the fuel prices were not up.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we are in no net windfall position.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Will he, in response to the increased cost for home heat, whether it be fuel or electricity, consider scrapping his income tax break - which is only going to benefit primarily the wealthy people - and instead introduce a 15 per cent home heat rebate to consumers of fuel oil or electricity instead of this income break?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the reduction in income tax that has been announced by this government last October, by my predecessor, and the income tax reductions that have been announced by the federal government, in total will go a fair distance toward helping people with any extraordinary costs they have for any consumer product.
The fact of the matter is that the allegation of the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that the tax breaks are only for the rich and the wealthy is fundamentally flawed and incorrect. The tax breaks that have been announced in total by federal and provincial governments are clearly focused on and directed toward the middle income people of the Province. He need not fear, if he is concerned about him getting an extraordinary large tax break because he is in the stratosphere in terms of his income. You are not going to get that, I tell the hon. member.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: It is going to go more or less toward the middle income bracket, the people who earn on average the mean salary in the economy and who pay the most taxes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government had an employee on the management team of IPL to monitor financial operations of that company. I ask the Minister of Finance: Will you table in this House all reports from your representative on the board, government accountants and all sources, that detail where the $25 million that government had given them over the past three years went?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not familiar directly with the position or the person to whom he refers but let me say this to him, that on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province and for the interest of the Members of the House, we are prepared and I am prepared to table in this House whatever level of information is appropriate, not only with respect to people who are working on the IPL file, but people who are working in any other area of government interest and being paid out of the taxpayers' purse.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for what the minister thinks appropriate to be tabled in the House. I am asking for all information to be tabled. The people of this Province have a right to know how $25 million of their money was spent. Will the government, and you as minister, ask the Auditor General to conduct a full audit of how $25 million in public funds was spent and managed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. member, in case he is not fully aware of this, that the Auditor General of this Province is appointed by this House and is a servant of this House, and he is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It is not the role, as I understand it, of the Minister of Finance or any other minister to give direction to the Auditor General to do anything in terms of her scope of work and practice. That is in the singular prerogative of the Auditor General, and I am confident that the Auditor General of this Province will do what she thinks is appropriate with respect to this particular issue or any other issue that she might want to reflect on.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Labour. Minister, I would like to refer back to your Ministerial Statement just at the opening of the House of Assembly today. This problem of shellfish asthma, as I said, is nothing new. It is something that has been around for the past ten years. I do not even think it is new to you as Minister of Environment and Labour. I ask the minister if his department, in the past, has done any inspections whatsoever of fish processing facilities in this Province and if not, why not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Yes, I can say to the hon. member that last year there were four official complaints that were made to the department. As a result of these complaints that were made our inspectors went to a number of plants. As a result of these four inspections that were done there has been considerable improvements made in the ventilation system in these plants over the winter.
What I can also say to the member opposite is that I am sure there are many other problems out there other than the four that were officially given to us. That is why in December of last year the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission wrote to every one of the plants and sent them literature telling them of this particular problem that was there and again suggesting to them some ways that it could be improved.
Primarily, what you have in this instance is the fact that many of these groundfish plants were codfish, and then when they became crab plant operations the ventilation system wasn't adequately, probably, prepared for it and as a result there are more of asthma problems that we have.
We did do inspections, we did followup, and there were recommendations that were made. As a result of the Working Group that is in now I am hoping they will be able to address many more of the issues that are there as well.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that those fish plant workers are caught between a rock and a hard place. Many of them are working at seasonal jobs, afraid to take time off on sick leave because they will not get enough contributions to qualify for EI and feed their families, and afraid to approach Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission because of your deeming process. It will probably deem them to be real estate agents, lotto salesman, or something else which is unreasonable.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he would immediately put in place some action in order to alleviate this great concern among fish plant workers in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, that is what we have just done. We have introduced a working committee made up of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, made up of FFAW, FANL, and the Departments of Health and Community Services and Fisheries and Aquaculture. That Working Group, I would assume, would start immediately to start to correct some of the problems that are in the plants in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: Being Wednesday we now move to the Orders of the Day. I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved a resolution.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The resolution I read into the record yesterday I will read again just to jog the memories of members opposite.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: No ‘whereases.' There do not need to be any in a private member's resolution. We wanted to get right to the point on this one, and to arm our colleagues on the other side on the eve of their federal Liberal convention.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: On the eve of their convention we are going to see where they stand on this issue. That is what I will say, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon in this House we are going to see where they stand on health care. We are going to see if they have the backbone, if they have the commitment.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? I say to my constituent from Kilbride, you are very welcome for the concern that I have for you.
Now, it is very clear. We will say it clearly:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House condemn the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada for:
(a) refusing to provide adequate funding for health care;
(b) placing in jeopardy the ability of the Province to uphold the five principles of medicare; namely, comprehensiveness, universality, accessibility, portability, and public administration; and
(c) compelling the Province to privatize certain health care treatments and services that the publicly-funded medicare system can no longer provide to all who require medical care.
I recall being at an Estimates Committee one night three years ago. I believe the former Minister of Health was then the Minister of Health. The debate and discussion that centered around the Estimates Committee meeting - and for people in the gallery, the Estimates Committees take place right after the Budget process. It is an opportunity in the nighttime for members to discuss in detail with the minister and their deputy ministers, ADMs, all of the money spent in a particular department.
Anyway, at that particular Estimates Committee meeting the discussion on health care and the universality of health care took place. Now if you can imagine, it is extremely difficult on the one hand if you have a federal government that has laid out for the entire country to see, for all Canadians to see, what they believed to be five aspects and principles that will make up, and if we adhere to them as provinces, and that would ensure that the universality of health care is protected for everybody; that there would be no need whatsoever for any province within Canada to even consider, to even look at, to even investigate the possibility of privatizing some aspects of health care in Canada. That is what happened that night. We discussed that and that is what is in jeopardy.
Is it any wonder that people are frustrated in this Province when you see the Minister of Finance federally, the Minister of Health federally, and recently, John Manley, the Minister of Industry, who said on a CBC radio program that we actually gave more money to the provinces for health care this year, not less. How do you figure that?
In 1993, transfers under the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act were $420 million to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Beginning in 1994, and then onwards in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, that amount each year was cut by $130 million, back to $270 million. So in short, in seven years -
AN HON. MEMBER: Who was in Cabinet?
MR. E. BYRNE: One second, we are going to get to all of that. We have lots of time to explore all of that.
In seven short years this Province, from the federal government, has been clawed back $750 million for health and education. When you listen to federal ministers like John Manley indicate loudly that we have given more, well, they have not. People in the system, people at the health board level, know exactly the stresses we are dealing with.
Look at it provincially. I recall last year distinctly - it was after the 1999 election, just prior to the opening ceremonies of the Winter Games - the federal Budget was announced. Again, there was no increase in the amount of money being transferred to the provinces. What we asked for at that time was restoration. We did not ask for more as a party. We asked the federal government clearly and unequivocally to restore funding levels under the Canada Health and Social Transfer to its 1993 levels to give this Province and the people in this Province the opportunity to avail of a system of health care in Canada. Something that makes us, as a country, distinct, unique, a model for the rest of the free world, no question about that. Restore funding levels so that we could have access to the five principles that they themselves set out - not provinces, not individual provincial health ministers but the federal government - under its responsibility, to restore those funding levels to 1993, so that each Newfoundlander and Labradorian could have access to comprehensive health care, universality of service, irrespective of what income bracket you come from, irrespective of what age you are, irrespective of the things that may separate us in terms of our social economic status, that everybody would have equal access to health care and to the services under that system; that we have accessibility and portability - portability meaning that if we cannot provide a service here or if a service in a particular area or region cannot be provided, that we have access to it in a universal way, no matter where it may exist in the country, on a universal footing, free of charge. That is the principle set forward by the federal government.
Now, at the same time, the federal government are now saying to the provinces - and I note the fight that is going on between the Province of Alberta and the federal government. After the most recent federal budget, the Premier of our Province speculated publicly about the need to investigate privatizing certain aspects, or the possibility of privatizing certain aspects, of the system.
The now provincial Health Minister was publicly quoted yesterday as saying that they are gambling. If we were in his shoes, or if I was in his shoes, we would have no other choice as well, I say to him, because they have to take all of that money that was announced this year - $40 million or $44 million I believe it is; he can stand and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right, $44 million - the federal government put an extra $2.5 billion in - we could draw over a four-year period or we could take it all up front. Our take on $2.5 billion, as a province, is $44 million over four years. That is our take. It does not even cover the deficits that health care boards are now operating under. It does not even cover the deficit; so if we were to apply all of that to the health care board deficits, it does not increase services, it does not enhance services, it does not provide us the opportunity or financial means to offer a variety of other services, and it will be argued today successfully because it is true.
We are now sending cancer patients to clinics outside of not only our Province but outside of our country, and paying for it, to the United States. Is that not privatization? We can offer that service rate here. We are sending health care patients who are on open heart lists, not reduced in number as each week goes by, but as each week, month and year goes by, the numbers who are on heart waiting lists are increasing. My colleague from Ferryland, the health critic, will get into more detail on some of those aspects as the debate goes on, but I want to focus in now on what we should be doing as a Province, vis-à-vis the federal government.
What more can we do? What type of messages are we sending? I will give you two examples. I noted earlier that just before the opening of the Winter Games last year in Corner Brook, the federal budget was announced; and immediately the Minister of Finance then, the Member for Humber West, the Minister of Health then, the Member for St. John's Centre, and the Premier of the Province condemned for two days what the impact would be on provincial health care systems.
The former Minster of Health, the now Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, said that if this trend continues we will have no choice but to privatize certain aspects of the health care system in this Province. The Minister of Finance at the time said it was a drop in the bucket, and what happened the day after? The Prime Minister of the country visited the Province to open the Winter Games, spoke to the Premier about his vocal opposition to the federal budget, both the Province of Quebec and Newfoundland; because it was at that time, you see, that the formula changed. It was at that time that the funding formula to the provinces changed, to our detriment. It used to be, prior to 1999, and it was always prior to 1999, that money was allocated on a per needs basis. Those who needed it the most received the lion's share of it.
Our Province is among the most who need it, for a couple of reasons. Our population is aging. Due to out-migration, the demographic shifts have changed so dramatically that those people in the population who need health care - 60 per cent of the health care budget is spent on those who are fifty-five plus. It is a demographic fact, not fiction, but it changed. As a result of that change, those parts of the country who had more densely populated areas - places like Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia - they began to receive more, even though their economies were growing at a much faster pace, even though they had a collection or an ability from a revenue base within their provincial budget to meet the needs way beyond what we could, but the formula on which we were receiving money changed.
The day after the Prime Minister of the country came down, which was two days after the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health at the time, condemned that change, the Prime Minister of the country showed up in a meeting with our Premier and showed him his own words from Hansard, when he was in the federal Cabinet sitting in Parliament, that showed that he supported the move - said it - towards a population-based funding system. What happened?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: One second now. This is an important debate this afternoon. We are not going to try to over politicize this because many people are struggling with accessing services, and I am sure every member can attest to it. The day after our Premier spoke out provincially about how that was bad, both he and the Prime Minister stood side by side in a room in the Glynmill Inn, in a press conference, and our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, said he had spoke to the Prime Minister and now everything was okay. Everything was okay.
Now, this year's budget, the same sort of cat and mouse or shell game occurred again. I watched the federal budget in my office upstairs with a group of people - some accountants, some economists, the critic of Finance, the member and colleague for Cape St. Francis - and here is what we saw after the budget. It became abundantly and immediately clear that this budget was not going to meet the needs of this Province when it came to the social side of the ledger in terms of health and education.
The first response from government was from the Minister of Finance. This is an excellent budget, he said. A little bit concerned about health care, but we should be able to handle it. Fifteen minutes later, I watched the Premier of the Province in Ottawa on national television say: This budget is not very good for health care.
Two completely different messages, once again. For the first several hours after the budget, nationally, I heard the Premier say: We demand a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada. All the Premiers demand a meeting immediately. This money is not even going to get us beyond this year.
What happened the next day? Another statement from the Premier: I have met with Paul Martin and everything is going to be okay.
These are not my words. This is not fiction on my part. This is the way it is.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, set up a set of principles and demand that each province meet a minimum standard in terms of those five principles of health care, and we will review them again: the universality of health care, comprehensiveness of health care, accessibility of health care, portability of health care, and the public administration of health care. You cannot demand that each and every province, irrespective of their means, live up to those fundamental principles if they are not going to put their share into it financially. If they do not, if they fail to understand their role, if they fail to understand that it is the federal government, yes, that sets the standard and the benchmark, but in cooperation - that one of the things that makes this country unique is the ability of the federal and provincial governments to cooperatively work together in the provision of services for the Canadian people - but if they renege in any way, shape or form, then what is happening in Alberta is just the beginning. Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, is talking about a provision for the supply of health care services.
MR. HARRIS: Which party is he with?
MR. E. BYRNE: He is with the ultra Conservative Party of Alberta, I say to my friend the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. MERCER: (Inaudible)!
MR. E. BYRNE: No, absolutely. I can say with all honesty that where he is moving is not where we would move, and no one in this House would want him to move. I would suspect, I say to the Member for Humber East, that the direction Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin have moved on health care is not the direction that you would want them to move on health care either.
The reality and the truth is this. Legislatures right across the country must begin to express their will in solidarity against this federal government with respect to their funding of health care. If we want to maintain the level of health care, maintain the principals of universality and accessibility, then we have an obligation as elected members in our provinces. Irrespective of political stripe or persuasion, irrespective of any loyalties whatsoever, where we see an issue that so fundamentally effects everybody in this Province then I believe we have an obligation to act unilaterally and unanimously in this place. We have done it before on a number of occasions. We have had the opportunity -
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will just clue up, Mr. Speaker.
We have done it before in this House. People on both sides of the Legislature, irrespective of political stripe, irrespective of the partisan nature of what this place is, we have come together on other issues for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask members today to do exactly that.
All we are requesting is c
ontained there in one statement, which reads:
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House condemn the Prime Minister and Government of Canada for:
(a) refusing to provide adequate funding for health care;
(b) placing in jeopardy the ability of the Province to uphold the five principles of medicare; namely, comprehensiveness, universality, accessibility, portability, and public administration; and
(c) compelling the Province to privatization certain health care treatments and services that the publicly-funded medicare system can no longer provide to all who require medical care.
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to have a few words to say about this particular resolution brought forward by the members of the Opposition. Let me make it very clear from the very outset, let there be no doubt as to where I stand on this issue: I will most emphatically be voting against this resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: I will be voting against it and I urge all members on my side of the House to do likewise.
Mr. Speaker, you might ask why I would vote against a resolution that is calling upon the federal government to put more money in Newfoundland's health care system. I believe the federal government should put more money in the health care system in Newfoundland and in the other provinces in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: The hon. member is speaking to all members of the House. There was a lot of noise here. I thought I heard him say that he was actually going to vote against this resolution. Is that correct?
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The reason why I will vote against this resolution will come. Before coming in here, I had some lingering doubts that the members opposite were genuinely, positively concerned about health care in this Province. I really had some genuine beliefs that they may really be. I could not think for a second that they would be politically motivated on such a very important issue.
In the first five seconds of the Leader of the Opposition getting up, he makes reference to the fact that we are going to a national Liberal convention in Ottawa. Clearly this resolution is put forward to do nothing more than to try to embarrass the members on this side. I will tell you one thing. I know which convention I am going to in Ottawa. I know I am attending the Liberal Party convention. Which party will they be attending when they go to Ottawa for their national convention? Will it be the CRAP convention, will it be the Tory Party, or will it be the Reform Party? We do not know, but the nation waits with bated breath.
If the members opposite were truly serious in bringing forward this resolution they would have, immediately upon Ralph Klein bringing forward the privatization bill, stood up on -
MR. TULK: They might go to BC to visit Peckford again to get some advice.
MR. MERCER: Or to somewhere else where another former premier might be residing at the present time. If they were serious they would have brought in a resolution condemning the Premier of Alberta for bringing forward a privatization bill which puts us on a slippery slope of bringing us towards a two-tier system of medicare in this Province, one for the rich and one for the poor. That is what they would have done.
I would also suggest that perhaps before they would have also done something else. They may have consulted their legal beagle for St. John's South on free trade. Because as Mr. Speaker knows, and we have been told in this House on many occasions, once you make a precedent in this country on the free enterprise system or the internal trade agreement it opens up the entire system. So we were told on Gisborne Lake. If we do Gisborne Lake every other province in the country must consummate a deal with external agencies to export water. The same thing on Ralph Klein in Alberta.
AN HON. MEMBER: I can see why you are voting against (inaudible).
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, like their cousins, as my friend from Bonavista South so frequently refers to, our political cousins. As their political cousins in the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, CRAP for short, the only stated reason for that party coming into existence and the only reason why they want to form a new party is not to give better government, not to provide better health care service in this country, but to defeat the Liberals. That is the only stated purpose for the CRAP party, to defeat the Liberals.
Now this past weekend the members opposite had their convention. I understand it was in something larger than a telephone booth here in the City of St. John's. They had a former premier in from BC. Basically what he said, and I quote him from The Telegram, is this. He tells these people at the convention: seek out those issues that can get you elected in the next election. Not to seek out those issues that you can provide a better alternative to, that you can do better on, but to seek out those issues which you can get elected on in the next election. This is where the Conservative Party has now fallen in Canada, simply to defeat the Liberals. Not because they have better programs or better ideas, but to defeat the Liberals.
Let's have a little talk about some of the comments made in recent months by our health care critic on the opposite side. I don't want to misquote this gentleman, I don't want to cast aspersions, but I just simply want to state a simple fact. We have a health care critic who was out there at every turn saying whatever there is to be said negative about our health care system. It took him so far that in late September or October, at the annual meeting of the St. John's Health Care Corporation, you got into a shouting match with the chairman of the board down there about some particular issue. I think it was about beds, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Member for Humber East is going to make comments on things that happened there, on a shouting match and things of that nature, I was there. I didn't (inaudible). He wasn't there. It is not accurate. I would like him to keep his information down to accurate statements that reflect what I said. If he is not going to do that I will keep rising on a point of order if they are not accurate. He is conveying a wrong impression to the public by making statements that he cannot substantiate.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: If I said that the minister was ranting and raving and he wasn't, I apologize for that.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is not the minister.
MR. MERCER: The member.
MR. TULK: What member were you talking about?
MR. MERCER: Ferryland, I believe.
I read a quote directly from The Telegram. As the evening progressed, it says - and I cannot use the gentleman's name so I will say the Member for Ferryland rambled on for considerable time about the ills of health care.
AN HON. MEMBER: Rambled?
MR. MERCER: Rambled on - a direct quote from The Telegram.
I am not at all surprised to see that kind of editorial comment written by one of our writers, because it is a comment that I have heard from many people across this Province. Whenever they hear the Leader of the Opposition or the House Leader -
MR. TULK: Alright, I was going to say he is the former.
MR. MERCER: - speak about health care, they say: Oh, not again. Here we go again.
MR. TULK: Is it any wonder they are seventeen points in the polls?
MR. MERCER: That is a good point, and we might elaborate on that shortly.
Also last year, about the same time, on November 16th, the hon. House Leader had a great deal to say about the health care system, particularly the cardiac surgery, problems caused by the lack of cardiac surgeons, lack of profusionists and lack of operating space. Around about that time we had another issue in the Province dealing with the nurses. This is a quote directly from Hansard,. He now says that the problems in health care, the cardiac section, is "not because of a lack of cardiac surgeons, not because of a lack of profusionists, not because the operating space is not there...", but due to a lack of nurses.
I have no doubt that nurses do play a very fundamental part and role in our health care system.
The point I am making here is that the member opposite and the party opposite are very quick to turn on any public issue to turn it to their public advantage to try and decry, at any opportunity, our health care system.
It is interesting that on the same date that the hon. House Leader made a statement about the lack of profusionists and so forth, on November 18th, their colleague in the Province of Alberta, Mr. Ralph Klein, introduced his privatization bill.
If you have any doubt as to who Mr. Klein is, he is and was the former Mayor of the City of Calgary who, during an oil crisis some years ago, referred to us here in the east to allow us to freeze in the dark. Those are their friends out west.
At the same time that the Leader of the NDP Party in Alberta and the Leader of the Liberal Party in Alberta were saying things like: If the Premier, Premier Klein, really cared about the pain and suffering of Albertans on waiting lists, why did he close three public hospitals in Calgary - blow one of them up - and shut down 44 per cent of the hospital beds in the City of Edmonton? His response to that was simply: We had more hospitals than we needed. This is the great defender of health care in the Conservative Party on the opposite side.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring those points to your attention and also bring your attention to the fact that in a recent article in The Telegram, actually on February 8th, the hon. House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition - there are two very nice pictures here on the front cover of The Telegram - they held a great press conference to talk about health care, and a seven point plan of how to solve all the problems. Point one: All we needed was another $130 million to $150 million from Ottawa and that would solve all of our problems.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: Before saying that, the hon. health care critic who is giving me his undivided attention in his discussion, I am quite sure -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: At the same press conference where these hon. gentlemen laid out their seven point plan, the hon. health critic stated that we needed a Royal Commission in Newfoundland -
AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't.
MR. MERCER: I am just quoting from The Telegram.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the facts clear. I was at a news conference and was asked - and I said maybe we need a Royal Commission, at a news conference out here in the lobby in the media room. It was in no statement, no inference. That is what my statement was. I am sure it is on tape. The media will have it on tape to clarify it; so do not put words in my mouth, I say to the Member for Humber East.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Don't dare put words in the hon. health critic's mouth because they may be positive words rather than the negative ones that we hear day after day in this House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, one can read very clearly - and if he wishes to have a copy, I will send a copy over to him. It all refers to what he had said.
On the one hand, the resolution today is calling upon the federal government to give us oodles of money and at the same time that party, the party opposite, is saying that what we have we are not spending correctly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder that any fiscally responsible government, whether it be Liberal, Tory or NDP, would hand out oodles of money to a government that is being accused publicly of spending it irresponsibly? What do you want, Mr. Health Critic and Mr. Leader of the Opposition? I am having great difficulty understanding where you are coming from and what you are trying to do.
Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is getting short but I just want to say - and I think it is becoming widely known in this Province - that the Tories, the party opposite, is using the health care system simply as a means to get political points to, as a former leader said, lead them back into power. It is time for the members opposite to speak resolutely on the issues of health care from the heart and with meaning, and not, as Bob Benson of The Telegram recently said: To hear the Tories tell it, the state of health care is not much better than the fetid squalor of Florence Nightingale encountered in the British military hospitals in 19th Century Crimean War.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a true representation of the health care system in this Province and it is time for the opposition parties and the opposition members to stand forthrightly and to speak confidently and to speak correctly about what is really happening in this Province. Yes, nurses are a vital part of our health care system and yes, they will be there the next time in order to cast their ballots.
Mr. Speaker, I could say a number of other things but to say more would be to repeat myself. I simply want to say that this motion by the members opposite is strictly nothing more than a political ploy to put before this House and to have us vote against the party that represents us in Ottawa, and it has absolutely nothing to do with health care in this Province. It has everything to do with trying to find a way back to power. I would say to hon. members, if you want to get back to power -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MERCER: - do things, do them responsibly and put forward good alternatives.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am just delighted, I say, to have an opportunity to stand here and reiterate a resolution and support that the Premier himself has supported in a public forum. He said it out in a public forum.
I didn't enjoy being misquoted by the Member for Humber East, but while we are quoting people, I am just wondering whether the quote attributed to him that - Tobin denies the accusation - the Premier denied the accusation, when the Member for Humber East said: A number of us got sandbagged by the Premier. We were not even aware that it was on the agenda that day; and Tobin - the Premier, referring to here - says: Tobin denies the accusation.
I wonder if the Member for Humber East - on that quote. I have it here. It is the quote. I will give him a copy if he needs it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a copy of the quote.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: It was in The Humber Log. I have a copy of The Humber Log.
MR. MERCER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, there was an article in The Humber Log some several years ago -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MERCER: - which I am so pleased that the hon. health critic finds it fit to keep in his desk drawer. I did not realize I occupied such a place close to his heart and he wants to rise at every possible opportunity to speak to that particular issue. I do not deny that I said it, and I -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Even Humber East MHA, Bob Mercer, was left scratching his head over the vote, it said, when he got sandbagged by the Premier. That is what The Humber Log says, I say to the member.
Anyway, I don't want to waste my time on such trivia. I want to get on to something important, and that is an issue that the Premier of this Province supports, and that is that the federal government has not put adequate funding into health care over the recent years. They have cut it. He wants more back in it. I support him on that issue. I just wish he had supported me on it for the last few years when I kept shouting out and he jumped up to protect his minister who said I was fearmongering. He said you are trying to capture a headline and all that. Now the Premier himself is out saying: There is a crisis; we need money. Why do we need it? What is this resolution you cannot support? I say to the Member for Humber East, why can't you support it?
The number one part of that resolution says, "refusing to provide adequate funding for health care". In 1992, this Province received $427 million under EPF, Established Program Financing, and CAP for health, post-secondary education and social services. At the low point, before they were pushed back in the federal election back in 1997, they were down to $272 million; $155 million less in one year. They have cut it.
The reason why we are battling to deal with the number two part of that resolution today, trying to maintain the five basic principles of health care, is because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to providing equality and access to health care in all regions of our country.
We do know there is a provincial responsibility too, and we are not getting away from that, but there is a strong federal aspect to it. If the federal government wants to divide us up into ten regions and throw us all to the wolves in each region and have ten or twelve different tiers of health care in this country, he is doing a good job because our population is declining. We are not getting the economies and efficiencies in delivering it like Ontario, with their growing population. Alberta, B.C., and every other province in Canada have populations that have increased and ours has decreased and therefore it is getting more costly to deliver it per capita. That is why I did not want to see, and I spoke strongly against, a shift into per capita funding. We have to deliver health care based on indicators that reflect the geography of provinces in this country to do that.
What the Member for Humber East or the members on government side cannot support about that, I do not know. There is not equal accessibility to health care, when you can get an MRI in a few days in downtown Toronto and you have to wait here for six months to get a routine; when you have to wait for two months for an urgent CAT Scan and other parts of the country have more rapid access; when you have to wait a year to see a dermatologist. When you have to get critical, an emergency case, to get seen, there is something wrong. While all the country is experiencing concerns with health care, not to the magnitude and degree they are in this Province.
The last particular one, we mentioned here in (c) part of this resolution, we are "compelling the Province to privatize ceratin health care treatments..." and so on. We have gotten to the point in this Province now where the Province is saying: Look, we do not have enough radiation therapists or medical physicists or people working in the cancer unit. We do not have enough to give you the service you need. So what are we doing? We are going to pay for you to leave this Province and go to the United States in private clinics. We are now funding private clinics in the United States to provide service to people here in our Province. That is what we are doing. We are providing funding to private health clinics in the U.S. right now. The statement was made by this department. It came out from the minister's department that they are going to pay for it.
That is privatization. I do not support going private for health care, but they have driven them so far that the people are starting to say: Look, we want access, we want health care, I do not care if I have to pay for it, I want it. I do not want to be waiting months to get treatment for cancer. It is life-threatening. I want an opportunity to live. If I have to spend $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000 for the chance to live I want to have that right to do it. That is why we are being pushed, because the federal government has not lived up to its responsibilities for getting equality and access to health care and we are driving people to that nth degree.
Eventually what is going to happen, because their contribution is going to be so minimal in areas, is they are going to say: To hell with transfers for health care to Alberta and other areas. They will say: We will go our own route and forget it; at least we will have better health care for the people of Alberta.
It is very unfortunate that we have seen things come to that level. In this country today, in the current federal government, we have seen an increase to almost 31 per cent of health care that is privately funded. We have seen that grow from in the 20 percentage points when they came into power. We are seeing it creeping up. Over this next decade we are going to be pushing at higher and higher, getting closer to 40 per cent funded. We are going to see, over the next two or three decades, half of it funded even under the current system because there is a drawing back from that.
So when this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, when this minister says: We can pay for you to go out of the Province and go to a private clinic in the United States to get treatment, that to me is privatization of health care. That is paying for private clinics in the United States to care for our people. Why are we doing that? Because we have not stayed competitive with medical physicists and radiation therapists who work in the treatment of people with cancer. Not only in these areas, but in other areas that are less critical, areas that do not probably affect your life span but affect your quality of life. People in areas like speech language pathology, pathologists, are very similar; physiotherapy, and physiotherapists, that is another example. Hospital pharmacies are almost in crisis situations. They have not had a full complement of pharmacists for instance in the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, and it is similar all across the Province. They have not had a complement in several years. Why? Because they are paying them substantially less, up to $20,000 less, than they are in other areas. People do not realize it, but the care of patients can be threatened by shortages of pharmacists who are very important. Medical treatment, someone available in dealing with dispensing medications, is a very important part of our health care system.
All these areas are important. Dietitians is another area. In almost every single facet we have allowed ourselves to be become non-competitive and we are paying the price for it. We are in a hole now that takes extraordinary effort to get out of it, and we have not got the resolve to do it. The minister does not have a solution, he said. He told us to today in Question Period he does not have a solution to the problems.
What is the sense of having 160 students graduate and you give a bonus of $3,000 and probably forty, fifty or sixty might take it? There was only eight-nine bothered to apply. That is all who bothered to consider it as an option. I know people who have applied to keep their options open and are looking at going out of the Province. They expect to get a hundred, they said. They expect to get a hundred out of 160, that is what they expect, that is what they are aiming for. If you are aiming for that you will not get that, but let's hope you do, let's hope they get more. What is the sense of keeping a hundred and losing 200 from last year, or the year before ? No sense. We are losing ground.
It is not a solution to a problem. It is not even a band-aid to a problem because people are seeing through it. They are starting to say: Look, that is a one-term thing, we are right back where we were. We have student loans. If we can go to the United States and get converted and pay it in Canadian dollars - our student loans on U.S. dollars, another fifty cents on a much higher salary level - we can pay off our student loans a lot quicker there. If we like it there, we can stay. At least we can come back debt free and come back with some money here. So we are losing people who graduated last year. Last year was the smallest graduating class which graduated, because the phase-in degree program - I think there were only forty-one graduated. I know personally of several. Several would be -
AN HON. MEMBER: Several is what, eight?
MR. SULLIVAN: No. I know five in one group are leaving within the month. I know four or five others are going over the next few weeks from last year's graduating class. Now keep in mind, last year's graduating class, by last May, twenty-two out of forty-one had already agreed and signed contracts to go out of there even as early as last April. I heard a person in the School of Nursing make that statement on CBC radio last May. That is twenty-two out of the forty-one had agreed already. Since that, I know two people in particular in my district of the other nineteen that stayed have gone, and others have called my office. The ones I am aware of, there is nearly three-quarters of those who graduated a year ago have gone, which means only one-quarter stayed. Now I know several of them who are going who graduated a year ago.
So there is no point of $3,000 to keep a nurse here for this year and lose a hundred or 200 who graduated in the last two or three years.
We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising right across the United States to get people to come back. I spoke to one couple who were offered $2,000 each in a far part of this country to come back. They say: $2,000 can't pay our expenses to get back. We just can't. We have a car each, we have responsibilities, the two of us are nurses, young kids. We would like to get back, we love Newfoundland and Labrador. Four thousand dollars to drive across the country? Get real. We are not going to do it, but we would love to do it. Even $3,000 each could barely cover their expenses to get home. They would like to come back. They were offered that.
There are offers going out to people coming back there. We have a serious problem here, and it is not going to be solved, because on top of the nurses we are not keeping we have other aging people. The average age is forty-seven, forty-eight, in the nursing profession here. They are at the point where we are going to have a void to fill. The same is happening with all the health care professions. Not only in that, it is happening in the teaching profession also.
We have long waiting lists, orthopaedics. We have people out there today who cannot get an operating room to look after the people calling my office saying: We cannot get surgery. I am six months on the list. With elective surgery now you are waiting nearly a year in certain specialty areas. To see a neurologist you have to wait about six months to a year to have an MRI.. To get even an urgent CAT scan you have to wait two months. An urgent MRI takes three or four months. I raised this issue last year. A young child fell and had serious head injuries and so on and was told he had to wait months to get an MRI. That is inhumane. There is something wrong.
My colleague there for Labrador West, they bring people down very seriously injured on medevac to the Province. One got discharged in a body cast and they said: Find your way home. They had to occupy three seats. They hardly could squeeze on the plane. They had to get a local group - I do not know but the (inaudible) or some group raised the money in Goose Bay to get that person back.
A person came in two weeks ago, brought in by medevac from Labrador West, because they have Lou Gehrig's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - my colleague may know about that - to get a feeding tube put in. Here two weeks and they don't have it in yet. A person is here occupying a bed at the Health Sciences Centre for two weeks and they cannot even get a feeding tube put it. They can't even get it brought in. We have businesses flying in parts in a day from all over this country to keep their businesses operating and we have people lying in hospital beds at $800 a day, $5,600 a week, $11,000 in the last two weeks, and we cannot get a feeding tube brought in? Where is the efficiently in operating our health care system? It is frightening.
If they were out in business today they would be gone bankrupt long ago because of the decisions and the bureaucracy and so on. That is just a sample of the hundreds of people I've talked to since Christmas. I go through roughly ten a day on health care. In the run of a week, at least fifty. In any given month two hundred, always dealing with health care, or letters dealing with it, expressing legitimate concerns. Who wouldn't be cynical about health care when you hear what is going on?
Do you know what? Behind it all, they are never out there complaining about nurses. They are not out there complaining about the service they get. Look, they don't want to even disturb nurses and other health care professionals because they figure they are so busy they consider they would be a burden on them. You have to bring your family to hospital. I often went down two or three flights of stairs in one place to get a pillow. Coming out of orthopedics, on that floor, where they need ice after a knee replacement or other operations, the ice machine is not working in the hospital. You can't get ice. You would not run a business that way, I tell you. I spent twenty years in business -
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me a great privilege to speak to this resolution. I want to say from the outset that I do not think that the Opposition were really looking for the support of the government in this resolution. It was a resolution that was deliberately crafted to put the government in what they thought would be an awkward position. They wanted the government to get themselves in this position of condemning. It was a negative resolution. If they were looking for the support of this side - and wording is very important. I have been in this House a long time, long enough to know and recognize the importance of the wording of a resolution.
As a matter of fact, I designed a resolution myself at one time and it was an excellent resolution. Somewhere in the resolution - I do not remember exactly what the resolution was now, but I know it was a good resolution - I had slipped in the word "liberal." I remember the House Leader of the day, Judge Marshall now, had said that he liked that particular resolution, it was a good resolution, but he could not support it with the word "liberal" in it. He could not do it. He could not support the resolution with the word "liberal" in it.
Now, I have forgotten whether we eliminated the word "liberal" to allow and to take care of the sensitivities of His Justice now, Mr. Marshall, or whether we left it there and he did not vote for it, but I remember it quite clearly. The words he said were something to this effect: that the least partisan member in this House is the Member for Terra Nova - that is what I was at the time - but even he could not avoid putting in the word "liberal" in this particular resolution, and the resolution was either changed or not voted upon. So, I use that point using none other than the eminent Mr. Justice Marshall to point out how important the wording of the resolution was to him. The record is there if hon. members want to judge or prove the validity of that statement. It is no trouble, if hon. members would research it, to find out and discover for themselves the importance of the wording.
If the Opposition wanted the government to support the resolution, if they did not want to place them in an awkward position, if their intention was not to try and put a wedge between the provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals, if they did not want to do that they would have come out with a resolution something like this: BE IT RESOLVED that this House requests the Premier of the Province to carry on his battle to get more money from the federal government, or that this House supports the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Whatever action they would have done to take the negativity out, Mr. Speaker, of condemning the federal government.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Since becoming a member of this House I have always been interested in listening to the Member for Terra Nova. We have served on the Public Accounts Committee together. I would like to ask him this question. Is there something so strange and something so wrong that when a federal government, irrespective of political stripe, perpetrates such a fundamental wrong on a province in Canada, that this House cannot stand up and condemn them? Why is it, I ask the Member for Terra Nova, that we cannot?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: I know that the hon. member -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: I am sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not recognized the hon. member.
There is no point of order.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Opposition are on a high, that they have just come out of this great convention over the weekend where they were entertained by a former premier who specialized in pugilistic, confrontational, adversarial antics. That is what they have just come from.
MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know deep down that the Member for Terra Nova would like to be in possession of all the facts surrounding a former premier and leader of our Party, and I would like to give him one more.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Not only were delegates of the convention entertained by him, but the Minister of Fisheries, before he left, phoned him personally - no, sorry had his office phone him - looking for his autograph for two constituents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: So not only were Tories at the convention being entertained, but the Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Port au Grave, phoned the former premier's mother's residence looking for the former premier because he wanted two of his autographs for his constituents. Clearly, members on both sides of the House have been entertained by the former premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, they really got entertained and this fighting pugilistic, adversarial, antics of the former premier sort of penetrated the whole conference.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) you were wrong. He said he never had the guts to do what had to be done.
MR. LUSH: We will get to that. Then, Mr. Speaker, this is what got the hon. gentleman going. We ask this, Mr. Speaker -
MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I forgot to fully inform the Member for Terra Nova that not only did the Minister of Fisheries want his autograph, but on Saturday morning the Minister of Tourism joined us for breakfast at the hotel and at 5 o'clock I bumped into the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the hotel as well, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken why it was that my colleagues wanted the autograph. There are many reasons why people want an autograph of some person so I would say that the hon. gentleman should look into the reasons, and I won't discuss them here.
Yes, the hon. the ex-premier was the great fighter but his fighting sort of died once he got past a few constitutional issues. Then, once he saw what had to be done for this Province, once he saw the big decisions that had to be made, once he saw where his fiscal and economic policies were leading this Province, once he saw that and saw the great change in direction that had to be taken in this Province, he lost nerve totally, saying that he wasn't ruthless enough. He never had the gumption, he never had the intestinal fortitude, to make the decisions that this government and the previous government have been making to put this Province on a strong economic foundation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear
MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: May I ask the Member for Terra Nova why it is that he cannot stick to the debate on condemning the federal government for not providing the necessary funding, which his Premier has already done, to provide the quality of health care, living up to the universality and the five principles of medicare? Why is it that he can't stick to the topic, stick to the subject? Get up and debate it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: It is very clear why the hon. gentleman cannot stick to the issue at hand. It is because he is continually interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition who wants to - every time you mention Peckford's name, the former premier's name in this Province - stand up and defend his hero, the fellow who stole his convention from him, got down there and got all the press coverage. The only bit that he could get was smiling over a table. He stood up, his former hero who now lives in B.C., who didn't have the gumption to do what had to be done, and put this Province in such a state. He wants to live in the past. I say to the hon. gentleman, sit down. Let the Member for Terra Nova speak and let him stay to the point.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker -
MR. GRIMES: I would say next year they are bringing back Tom Rideout as their guest speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: I say to the gentlemen and lady opposite that maybe they ought to change their tactics. Maybe they should become less confrontationalists. Maybe they should become less adversarial. Maybe they should take the approach that more is wrought by honey than by vinegar. When we are dealing with one of the most successful governments in Canada, one of the most successful governments that we have ever had in this country, let's look at being a little more diplomatic. Let's look at the problems that we are facing in this country today with respect to medicare; medicare, the best social program that ever this country has had, and maybe any country in the world.
Now it might not be their adversarial methods at all that is bringing them to this particular resolution. It just might be that they are suffering from overwhelming negativity. They are suffering from overwhelming negativity that nothing positive comes their way.
I just want to speak to the hon. the critic of health. Here we live in a country with the best medicare system in the world and we know - as Angus Reid just found out a little while ago - that is maybe becoming a little crumbly at the edges. That is what Mr. Reid concluded, that medicare is becoming a little crumbly at the edges and it needs people to stand up. It needs fine-tuning, but maybe the hon. member should become a little more positive about this medicare program. He has spread an air of negativity about this Province. When I think of the hon. gentleman - he is a rational, intelligent man - I cannot help but think how negative he is. The way that he has condemned the health services in this Province, one would believe that we had the worst system in the whole world. Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. He has built up a negativity in the Province and a lack of confidence in the health services in this Province, and the hon. gentleman doesn't want that to be his historical record. I am sure he doesn't want that to be his historical record, but yet -
MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: I want to be clear now on what the Member for Terra Nova is saying. He has already said that the previous Premier, Premier Peckford, was the fighting Newfoundlander; he fought hard for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this Province. Now he is saying we should have a different style. Is he saying that what we saw in the Globe and Mail, a picture of the Premier on bended knee to the Prime Minister of the country, is that what he wants this Premier to be doing, and this government?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some substantial issues about our health care and to tell the hon. gentleman that he is not doing the taxpayers of this Province, he is not doing the citizens of this Province, or the health care, any favour when he gets up prattling the way that he does. He is not doing this Province any favour when the hon. gentleman goes around prattling and savor rattling about what he perceives to be the terrible condition of the health service in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. I just wanted, for a moment, to read a couple of quotations for the hon. gentleman and ask him and ask all hon. members -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise today and speak on the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the most important health care system that we have here in Canada, that is now in danger and being threatened by two things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it is being threatened by a lack of funding and a lack of support particularly on the federal level for our health care system. Secondly, it is being threatened on a provincial level by a government such as that of Ralph Klein, who would like to privatize our health care system and eventually lead us down the slippery slope to a two-tiered health care system where one system is available for the rich and the other for the rest of us, like the American system that we have been so critical of in this country.
I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has included in his resolution the five principles of medicare: comprehensiveness, universality, accessibility, portability, and public administration. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this House is on record unanimously as supporting these five principles of medicare. In fact, this House even went further and urged the constitutional discussions that were taking place several years ago, in 1993, to include the five principles of medicare in the Constitution of Canada. It was a unanimous resolution of this House.
Mr. Speaker, there was one exception. The Premier was not in the House at the time, and he told the parliamentary committee afterwards that if he had been there it would not have been unanimous; but the rest of us, all the people who were in the House at the time, from the government, Cabinet, backbenchers on the government side, and everybody on this side of the House, supported that resolution put forth by me as the representative for St. John's East at the time, a resolution asking that these five principles of medicare be enshrined in our Constitution.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this has come forth and I am very pleased it is a timely resolution. It is the first opportunity that we have had since the House has opened, since the federal budget, to have an opportunity to discuss the importance of health care in this country. What we see in the federal budget is a total lack of recognition of the number one priority of Canadians. The number one priority of Canadians, in poll after poll conducted in the last four, five or six months, has been the preservation of our health care system.
When asked to choose between the health care system, more money for health care, and tax cuts, 72 per cent of the people supported health care over tax cuts; and what do we get from the Government of Canada? For every dollar of tax cuts introduced by Paul Martin in the House of Commons in the federal budget, there was two cents for health care, and that is the priority that was given to the health care of this country by the federal Liberal budget presented just a short few days ago.
Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. The root of the problem is the lack of federal response to the crying need for reinstatement of federal transfers for health care in this Province. The government is on record. They said in their Throne Speech yesterday that they stand for the principle of full restoration of transfer payments for health care, and I support them on that. I think everybody in this House would support that, given this resolution from the Conservative Party supporting that. I would say everybody in this House would support the full restoration of transfer payments for health care.
Mr. Speaker, in saying that I am glad this resolution is here, I have a very serious problem. I think the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Opposition, is going to speak and close this debate. I would like him to answer for this House a very important question, because this very resolution, or a very similar resolution, was presented in the House of Commons, calling for substantial and sustainable increases in cash to the provinces for health care.
MR. TULK: Read it out.
MR. HARRIS: I have it here, Mr. Speaker. This is a resolution presented by the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons:
This House calls upon the government to stand up for the Canadian value of universal public health care by announcing within one week of the passage of this motion a substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers for health beyond the inadequate sums announced in the budget, and by taking the steps necessary to prohibit private-for-profit hospitals and to stop the growth of private-for-profit health services in Canada. That was the motion, not very far different from the motion presented today by the Leader of the Opposition.
The problem that I have - I want the Leader of the Opposition here, today, when he gets up to speak, to close the debate, to answer the question as to why the Progressive Conservatives in the House of Commons voted against that resolution.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if what I think I heard is really what I did hear, that is so enlightening that I am going to ask the hon. gentleman if he would read it again very quickly. I think what I heard him say is that the Leader of the Opposition's party in Ottawa voted against that resolution, a resolution very similar to this one.
AN HON. MEMBER: What resolution?
MR. TULK: He just read it. He is going to read it again for you. He is here today asking us to condemn the Liberal Party of Canada for what they are doing, and at the same time he has not cleaned up his own house -
AN HON. MEMBER: What about Joe Clark?
MR. TULK: - and had his own Joe Clark and that crew vote for a resolution that, as I heard it, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is almost word for word the same resolution that he has put forward.
Read it again.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
Here is the resolution. It was a motions day, the same as we have here today, a motion by the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons:
That this House call upon the government to stand up for the Canadian value of universal public health care by announcing within one week of the passage of this motion, a substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers for health beyond the inadequate sums announced in the budget and by taking the steps necessary to prohibit private-for-profit hospitals and to stop the growth of private-for-profit health services in Canada.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Joe Clark.
MR. HARRIS: Joe Clark was not in the House. I don't think Mr. Clark was in the House that day.
MR. SULLIVAN: Do you have the recorded vote?.
MR. HARRIS: I do, yes. I have all the recorded votes right here. If the Opposition House Leader wants to have a look at it, he can have a look at the ayes and nays.
Let me quote one Conservative in the House. She gave the reason why she wasn't voting for it.
MR. SULLIVAN: I want to see the recorded vote.
MR. HARRIS: This is Diane St-Jacques, a Conservative Member of Parliament,. She was asked why she did not support the motion. She was asked, as a member of the Conservative Party, if she could elaborate on what aspects she had trouble with the most. She had difficulty with the part of the motion that talked about the privatization of health care. She did not think that the issue of privatization of health care should be rejected without further study; we should study the issue of privatization of health care and look for solutions there.
Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - you have fifteen minutes after I am finished.
MR. E. BYRNE: Are you sure you don't want an answer now?
MR. HARRIS: No, I don't want an answer now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. HARRIS: The member has fifteen minutes to close debate, and I am sure he will have lots of time to answer the question. I am not trying to blind side him, Mr. Speaker. I knew he was getting up right after me and he would be able to answer this question. We do not have any difficulty with the issue of where our federal party stands on health care and medicare, and where our provincial party stands on health care. We don't have to worry about Ralph Klein out in Alberta, who is doing more damage by his actions than any other Premier today, to health care and the problems with health care. We don't have any problem with that, but I do want him to tell us why his federal counterparts - where this battle has to be fought. Let's face it, the Province can only do so much, as he has quite rightly acknowledged here. The Province has difficulty meeting its obligations. We need the national support of the national government in Ottawa, and we can only get that support if the majority of the Members of the House of Commons support our national health care system. So I am asking him: Where is the national Conservative Party on the issue of health care? Why can they vote against a resolution like that, which demands and asks for the very thing that the member is asking for here today in this House? I am not trying to make partisan political points here. I want to know -
AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
Order, please!
With so much noise here in the House, it is difficult for the Chair to hear any individual member who rises to speak to a point of order. So I would ask that you please keep the noise down to a roar.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, it is my right as a member to stand on a point of order. He is the arbitrator of that, not you. Now, before you get too (inaudible), do you want an answer to the question? I will give you one. Do you want to give me leave to give you one? I will give you one. If you don't -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition doesn't need leave to answer the question. He has fifteen minutes, starting in about three or four minutes, and I am sure he is going to give us a very elaborate answer.
This is not a partisan issue. We had a unanimous resolution. All three parties in this House supported the resolution on the five principles of medicare, and in fact asked them to be constitutionalized and put in our Constitution of the country so they could not be changed by Ralph Klein or anybody else. That is what this House asked for, and his party in this House supported that resolution. I am very pleased to say, and very proud to say, that it was my resolution put forth by this hon. member; but what I want to know is how can we, as a nation, enforce these five principles of medicare in our federal House of Parliament where the money for medicare has to come if we don't have the support of the majority of the people of the House of Commons?
Now the New Democratic Party supported that motion. The Bloc Québécois supported that motion. The Bloc Québécois, who believe that we should not even have a country that they are a part of, supported a resolution which called for immediate cash transfers to the Province. They supported that resolution because they know how important it is. So the question really here is: How can we have a health care system that we are going to continue to be proud of, if we don't have the support of all the parties of Canada?
Now I can see why the Liberal Party would vote against it because it asks for immediate action contrary to their budget. I can see why they did that, for the same reason that this government might not like the exact wording of this resolution here, but why would the Conservative Party join with the Reform Party in condemning this resolution? Why would they do that? I want an answer to that question and I think the people of this Province deserve to know and find out how we can, as a Province, with the support of whatever majority we need in the House of Commons to get resolutions passed, how can we do it if the Conservative Party of Canada is going to vote against this resolution in the House of Commons? That is the question that the member has. The leader has fifteen minutes to answer it, and I hope he will answer it because it is an important question.
I will support this resolution here in the House because I think it is important that we do that. I am not sure I like the third part of it, number (c) there, because I don't think that we in this Province are compelled to privatize certain health care services. I don't think we are. That is a choice that the people of this Province are going to make, whether we are going to privatize certain health care services. I don't think that we are compelled to do that, but I am not going to quibble with the interpretation of it. I am going to support the resolution -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: - because I think the general sense of it is that there is not enough being done for health care and the Government of Canada is the one that has the responsibility of ensuring that the money is there to make that happen.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I would like to know whether or not we are going to have the support of the Conservative Party of Canada.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, one second. It is to practice to alternate. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was standing.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted to speak today on the private member's resolution that has been put forward by the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Opposition. I came here today because I wanted to speak specifically to what is happening in the Province of Alberta with regard to health care and Bill 11, and what we could possibly foresee in this country if that bill is implemented, and the turn that our health care system would take. I guess I was a little bit surprised by the comments from the Leader of the NDP Party.
I cannot believe that I sat in this House today and witnessed the Opposition bringing in a resolution in this House asking that we condemn the federal government and the Prime Minister, when a resolution in the House of Commons that has been laid in the House of Commons has not been supported by their party and by the Progressive Conservative Party in this country. Yet, they bring it to this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me answer for my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the question that he has asked.
Jack - or I should say my hon. colleague - that is the difference between Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador and Liberals. We don't mind condemning anybody who is against the principles we put forward, not at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: If anybody in the national Conservative caucus voted against the type of resolution, in spirit or intent, in what we provided here today, then I would join with anybody in condemning anybody who voted against a resolution - unlike members opposite who want to play cheeky, playing pure politics with it, but anybody -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the Leader of the Opposition speaking to a point of order?
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I have fifteen minutes to conclude.
MR. SULLIVAN: That was the point of order, his last fifteen minutes.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, absolutely, I am recognized.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, you were not.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Speaker recognized me. When I stood up, he said: The Member for Kilbride.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No, I recognized the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, my mike is on; I thought you recognized me. Would you like me to sit down and stand again?
MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: That was the point I was going to make, that he should be recognized now, so I sat down then.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very clear in terms of its intent. It is in keeping with the language made by the Premier, the former Minister of Finance and the former Minister of Health, keeping with the language they have used from time to time.
Is the approach members opposite are suggesting - when a federal government is not going to provide the measure of funding that ensures the principles of medicare in Canada are upheld; that provide the necessary resources from a federal perspective to ensure that those principles of medicare and the principles contained in the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act remain - that they stay silent? That behind the scenes they go with their cap in hand to ‘Uncle Ottawa' to try to get as much as they can, wherever they can, and not stand up for the people in this Province? Because if that is the approach, it is an approach that the people in this Province do not want.
I have made myself clear to the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi in terms of our position on this very important issue, and I will make myself clear to anybody who is willing to hear it. We will be looking forward to see who votes for what in a few moments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Is the house ready for the question?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!
MR. SPEAKER: Against, ‘nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.
Division
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
All those in favor of the resolution, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms S. Osborne, Mr. T. Osborne, Mr. Manning, Mr. Hunter, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr. Lush, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Smith, the hon. the President of Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Jones, Mr. Joyce.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CLERK: Mr. Speaker, fifteen ‘ayes', twenty-two ‘nays.'
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn the House today I want to give notice that on Tuesday the House will be debating Interim Supply. I give notice of motion that the House will not adjourn at 5 p.m. or 10 p.m. Only in case we need it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I know that this House can move to do anything if there is unanimity amongst members. The Minister of Health just said to me then that if the resolution had contained that we condemn the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada and Ralph Klein he would have voted for it. So I am asking now, is it too late to add that amendment so we can have the Minister of Health stand up and vote for our resolution?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Is it too late? Mr. Speaker, I am asking members unanimously to give leave so we can amend that, so we can vote again to let the Minister of Health stand and vote with us on that resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: I would support the suggestion of the hon. member. I would go along with it and I would ask all hon. members to give leave. I would be even happier if we added the PC Party of Canada to the list of people we are condemning.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: I see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has agreed to that too.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I draw from the silence on this side of the House that there was no leave granted.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the House that as you probably know (inaudible) we will not meet tomorrow, that we are not meeting Friday, and we are not meeting on Monday for St. Patrick's Day, but we will be back here Tuesday. I think I talked to (inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) weekend (inaudible).
MR. TULK: I think after the tremendous stress that we put you through today you need it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Before the House adjourns, I believe the hon. Government House Leader has put a motion to the House that we not adjourn at 5:30 on Tuesday.
MR. TULK: I give notice of motion.
MR. SPEAKER: Give notice of motion, okay. He gave notice of motion. I just want to make that point clear that a notice of motion has been given.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.