|
Oral
Questions
May 20, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the
Premier and the Minister of Health were both carried
live on television stations in the Province, saying that
government was going to put in place a plan to solve the
Province’s critical shortage of pathologists, and that
it would be done in the next seven to ten days.
I would like to ask
today: What plans have been put
in place, and have those remedies now been presented to
the pathologists in the Province for consideration?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, we can advise that the initial meeting took
place a week ago Thursday. Since then, there have been
meetings between the Department of Health officials and
medical officials.
In fact, there was an
unfortunate accident over the weekend, of which hon.
members may not be aware, where the Deputy Minister of
Health was in a serious car accident, so that has kind
of put us back for a day or so, but hopefully by this
week we will certainly have the matter resolved and have
recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly will await
an update on that.
Also, last Thursday we
made the public aware in the House of Assembly that a
leading physician in diabetes care for the Province was
actually leaving and had tabled her resignation. A
number of patients have contacted us over the weekend,
who are very concerned about this. I understand,
Minister, her resignation has nothing to do with pay or
benefits, but rather the working environment within
Eastern Health.
I ask today if you, as
the minister, will intervene
and see if there is a way that we can retain this
leading expert in diabetes in the Province before she
decides to make her resignation effective the middle of
June.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite
indicated she made us aware last week, but we were fully
aware of the resignation of Dr. Colbourne. As to the
reason for her resignation, I cannot comment on that
because I really do not know.
I can tell you, though,
Mr. Speaker, that I think it is this Wednesday or
Thursday - I am not sure which day it is, but one
afternoon this week - she has an appointment with me,
and she and I will have a chat. At that time, no doubt,
we will talk about a range of issues including her
experience with our health system in the Province, her
plans for the future, and any suggestions or
recommendations that she may want to make to help us
improve our health system, and I am looking forward to
that discussion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Any efforts to retain
this physician in the Province will certainly be to the
benefit of those patients she serves.
It is our understanding
that there has been no replacement found for her, upon
her vacancy, and that her patients will be fielded out
to other doctors in the Province who do not necessarily
specialize in this disease or treatment.
I ask the minister: Do you know
if any plans have been made to take up the caseload that
will be left behind if she is to make her resignation
effective?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As is the normal
practice, any time a physician leaves their practice,
whether it is in St. John’s or anywhere else in the
Province, the normal procedure is that, that physician
has a responsibility to ensure that someone else is
responsible for the care of their patients.
As I understand, in this
particular case here, arrangements have been made for
the patients of this individual who is leaving to be
followed up by other physicians throughout the Province.
Because, as I understand, this physician had patients
from around Newfoundland and Labrador, so many of those
now will be followed by physicians potentially back in
the area in which they live, but in some way or other
there have been arrangements made, as I understand it,
for another physician to be following the patients seen
by this particular doctor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, during the Budget consultations, government,
through the Minister of Finance, decided to manage
expectations around the Budget, especially as it relates
to capital costs that are exploding, and basically
saying, I think, in two of the consultation sessions
that some projects may not get done. I think the biggest
capital project that would be proposed by the government
to date would be the Lower Churchill Project.
My question today is for
the Premier. Premier, can you
provide the House with the latest cost estimates for the
different components of the Lower Churchill Project?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have those
estimates with me today, but I am certainly happy to
produce them and table them in the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you.
I would like to have
that, Minister, in as short a time as possible as you
can. We have been waiting for ten weeks, I think, now,
for some information, so we would not want it to drag on
that long.
Mr. Speaker, also,
earlier on - in December, actually, 2002 - when the
Premier was speaking during a rally on the Lower
Churchill Project, he was quoted as saying that there
should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there is
some redress on the Upper Churchill.
I guess my question would
be: Has any action been taken
by government to condition that Upper Churchill
agreement so that we can see approvals for development
moving ahead on the Lower Churchill deal if the rest of
the components fall in place?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, to date, as the hon. member opposite is aware,
there has not been any redress granted to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, on the Upper Churchill, and
that is an ongoing problem. Of course, as you know, the
renewal comes up in 2016, and then there is an automatic
renewal out to 2041; and, of course, our Energy Plan
speaks from that date.
I have also indicated,
too, that if the Lower Churchill is not going - if the
power is not going to go through Quebec, then there will
not really be an opportunity in that particular project
to interface with Quebec. If we happen to go east and we
go south then we will not be dealing with the Province
of Quebec or Hydro-Quebec at all.
The only opportunity
where there would be an opportunity to discuss redress
in that package is if we go into Quebec and then on out
through to Ontario.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I know that in the past the Premier was quoted
as saying that the Province of Quebec and its agencies
have been doing what they can to try and block
development as it relates to the Lower Churchill
facility.
I guess my question would
be, then: Is there any future
consideration being given, or at this time is there
still consideration being given, to a possible deal with
Quebec for the transport of power?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I have said from time to time we are keeping
all of our options open; and, of course, that is the
wise thing to do because it enables us then to leverage
the best possible deal, whether it is east and south or
whether it is west and south. So, from that perspective,
there is always a possibility that a deal could be done
with Quebec; but, of course, they would obviously have
to pay fair market value.
The problem with Quebec
is they have always tried to basically cut us off at the
border. So, once we get to the border of Labrador and
Quebec, they want us then basically to hand our power
over to them.
In the last agreement
which was being done with the Grimes government, they
were going to build it, they going to contract it, they
were going to own it, they were going to manage it, they
were going to market it, they were going to finance it,
and they were basically going to take control of the
whole project.
We have reversed that; we
have said Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership with
the Innu, should do this project, and that is really
where we still stand on that, but, by the same token,
when we have made applications - and we have a very
sophisticated team looking at this -
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. the
Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
– which we can be very
confident in, and very proud of. Basically, what we have
said to them is make the necessary applications to go
south and make the necessary applications to go west and
south, and that is exactly what we are doing, and we are
keeping all options open at this time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
A few years ago, there
was a study paid for by the Province to look at the
wielding rights of power in Quebec. I
am just wondering if that study has been completed, and
if it will be released to the public.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
have not seen that study, Mr. Speaker, but what we have
done is – I mean, as far as we are concerned, we do
have wielding rights through Quebec. The issue is
capacity to transport the power, transmission
availability. So what we have done is we have filed an
application through the OATT process, which is – I
think this is right – the open access process. Is that
the proper terminology, Minister?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Open
Access and Transmission - which is the first time the
Province has ever done it, so we have actually
positioned ourselves and got ourselves in the queue, in
position to get access to power. This has kind of thrown
Quebec for a loop, because it has never happened before,
and now they are finding that for a certain segment of
power we are ahead of them.
We are now going through
the regulatory process, which - I cannot go into all the
detail on it, but there are appeals being done through
that regulatory process to make sure that any roadblocks
that are being put up by Quebec can be opened.
Now, whether we can get
through those or not I do not know, but it is
unfortunate that Quebec and Hydro-Quebec are really
trying to do this to us on the Lower Churchill when, in
fact, they basically stole the Upper Churchill on us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier spoke of a
partnership with the Innu. We know that over the last
two years the provincial government and the Innu Nation
have been trying to work out a deal on the Lower
Churchill Project itself, but they are also seeking
reparations on the Upper Churchill portion, as I
understand from the Innu right now.
I guess my question to
the Premier is: Have there been
any negotiations around that, and will there be some
redress for the Innu on the Upper Churchill, if the
Lower Churchill Project is moved forward?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, there have been negotiations and, as I
understand it, detailed negotiations, with respect to
the claims agreement, of course, and the land claims
agreement is the one that we are trying to basically get
resolved first. Now there is a situation where it might
have been possible, actually, to discuss all of the
issues together and see if we can reach a final
agreement with the Innu.
On the public airwaves
last week, Peter Penashue indicated that there would be
no deal without redress; and, of course, this government
does not take ultimatums very lightly. Redress is
something we would certainly look at, but the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador have not obtained redress on
the Upper Churchill yet so we would be hard pressed to
be able to provide generous redress to the Innu on the
Upper Churchill under those circumstances, but we do not
want to negotiate that aspect of it in public. Nor do I
really want to negotiate it here in public, either, but
your questions are fair and, if you have any more, we
will try and answer them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I
guess, Mr. Speaker, a lot of that is coming from the
fact that there has been compensation for the Innu in
Manitoba on the Grand Rapids Generating Station, which
is a project as well going back forty years. I guess the
negotiations that you currently have ongoing with the
Innu today are based directly around the Lower Churchill
project.
Do I
understand that there has been no discussion yet on any
redress to do with the Upper Churchill as it relates to
the Innu?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
can probably say with 99 per cent certainty that the
question of Upper Churchill redress has been raised at
the table. Either myself or the ministers have not been
at that particular table because the negotiation has not
got to that stage yet, but I do understand that it has
been raised and it is part of a shopping list of matters
that will have to be dealt with in settlement of the
full claim. I can tell you, though, that I think the
major priority right now would be the quantum and
location of land in the land claims.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We have also heard media
reports of MOUs signed with the State of Rhode Island
and the regional power companies of Nova Scotia on
issues such as the Lower Churchill power consumption and
the distribution.
I guess my question would
be: What agreements have been
made for customers of Lower Churchill power? Can you
table in the House any market analysis associated with
economic plans, such as what you are forecasting to be
major customers over the next twenty-five to thirty
years, and if you have actually targeted these markets
to date?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The question relates to
an earlier question asked, and the response given to the
Premier. We are keeping all of our options open. Yes, we
do have an MOU with Rhode Island. We have an MOU with
Emera in Nova Scotia. People all over North America are
interested in our power. We made four different
applications under oath, which we were able to do
because of Quebec’s commercial arrangements in the
U.S. We can now apply for transmission through the
Province of Quebec because of those arrangements. This
project will cost anywhere from $6 billion to $9
billion. Power purchase agreements are going to be
required to help finance this project, and yes, when
Newfoundland and Labrador goes out of this Province, we
are courted by people who are interested in energy and
purchasing energy, green energy from us, from all over
North America.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, maybe I could just ask the minister for a
simple answer. Would you be
prepared to table the market analysis and the associated
economic plans with regard to the market studies?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. These are commercially
sensitive negotiations that we are in. We are about
trying to get the very best price that we can for our
resource, which is green energy that we have in
abundance in this Province. Wherever we can get the best
deal, Mr. Speaker, is the market that we are going to go
to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe
then I can ask the minister if she would be prepared to
table the MOUs that you have with Enron and also with
Rhode Island state?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I will table any
information in this House that does not compromise our
position in what it is that we are trying to achieve in
getting maximum benefit from our resource. We are open
and accountable and transparent. We make as much
information available as we possible can in every
circumstance, and we will not deviate from that in this
one either.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, in the Estimate Committee on Natural Resources
the minister did indicate to me that there was reports
or information which concluded that the Maritime route
is both technically and economically feasible as an
option for the Lower Churchill power developments.
I ask
the minister, if she would be prepared to table those
reports in the House of Assembly or at least make them
available for the public to review?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, my answer is the same as the last answer I
gave. Where I can provide information that does not, in
any way, compromise what we are trying to achieve in the
development of the Lower Churchill, I am more than happy
to provide it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier mentioned on
several occasions that the federal government is ready
to assist this project through the supply of a loan
guarantee. Going back a couple of years, there was some
tremendous debate over whether that commitment was
actually made by the Prime Minister or if it was not.
I guess my question today
would be: Is there any further
evidence that indicates that the federal government is
prepared to invest or at least provide the loan
guarantees that may be required if this project was to
proceed?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Are
you kidding?
The federal government
has not fulfilled the promise for the $10 billion that
they promised us, in writing. They have not fulfilled
their promise on custodial management. This would be of
particular interest to you, in Labrador they have not
fulfilled their promise in 5 Wing Goose Bay which they
promised very clearly, and they have made us a promise
on the guarantee. So you be the judge of that one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I find a lot of
governments short on promises these days, I say to the
Premier. I guess my next
question and my final question on this is: Is a loan
guarantee from this federal government still a vital
part of this project? I guess if it is, I have to ask:
Why is there not any discussions ongoing around it?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
did not say there have not been any discussions. There
have been discussions. There have been representations
by the department. There have been representations by
Hydro. There have been discussions with Minister Lunn,
Minister Baird, if I remember correctly. Certainly, the
matter had been raised on previous occasions with the
Prime Minister. So everything that can be done is
actually being done, but I can tell you categorically,
and I have stated it here time and time again, that this
Province is going to move forward with or without the
federal government. The guarantee would certainly help.
It would be a wonderful help. It would make our cost of
money easier but this government, this time, like they
did to us the last time, they shafted us on the Upper
Churchill but they are not going to shaft us on the
Lower Churchill, I can guarantee you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, students
from this Province who are continuing their education in
the United States have found themselves in a difficult
situation after they were informed in mid April that
their U.S. student loans were being cancelled. I am of
the impression that I think they wrote the Premier and
other ministers in government, and to date I have been
told that they have not received any response from the
Province.
I ask the Minister of
Education: Is she aware of this
crisis being faced by those students from this Province
and, if so, has anything been done to help to address
their situation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, certainly if there is issues with the student
loan program brought to this government’s attention it
will be dealt with by the Department of Education. I do
not have that information on me today but I will
certainly take it under advisement and look into that
matter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, my last question to the minister is. The
situation those students find themselves in from this
Province is that they are studying programs that cannot
be obtained here in this Province and on a very short
notice they were advised that their student loans that
they receive down there had been discontinued. Many of
them find themselves in a very difficult position now
financially, some of them owing as much as $30,000 to
$90,000 and still have so many semesters left. With this
funding discontinued from the American side of it, they
find themselves in a difficult situation. I know they
have been in touch with their federal representative,
Mr. Manning, and they are looking at the federal side of
it. I will just ask the minister now - I know she is
going to check this out - once she gets the information,
I am wondering if she will work
in conjunction with the federal government and hopefully
something can be done to alleviate their situation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, as I look into this matter - certainly a
portion of the Canada Student Loan comes from the
federal government, another portion comes from the
provincial government - so many times the policies and
the rules or the guidelines around student loans are
certainly something we share with the federal
government. So as we work through this issue, we will
certainly keep that in mind and work with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As a result of an access
to information request concerning Mr. John Fitzgerald,
our man in Ottawa, I had some questions for the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs. It might be one, depending
on what his answer is.
Minister,
I am wondering if you would be prepared - I understand
there is an employment contract between Mr. Fitzgerald
and the Province. I wonder if you would be prepared to
table his contract of employment?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I
guess any contract that is under the Public Service
Commission is available, so I will check and certainly
get back to you on that.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
During the election
campaign the Premier committed to bringing forth
whistleblower legislation to protect public servants who
might want to bring information forward in the best
interest of the general public. In fact, there was a
story carried in The Telegram, I believe it was
October 7 in that regard, and the Premier undertook at
that time to have it introduced in the first sitting of
the Legislature.
Given
that we will probably be winding down the House here
soon, I am just wondering if we can look forward to
seeing that legislation, the whistleblower legislation
during this first sitting?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell the hon.
member opposite that we are, and have been working on
the whistleblower legislation. We have looked at the
legislation that is in place across this country, and we
have had extensive discussions as to the nature and
content of this legislation. However, what we are
looking at now, there does need to be some consultation
with certain groups to determine the matters of
significance that would come under the whistleblower
legislation.
My understanding, and I
can be corrected if I am wrong, but my understand was
that we would bring in the whistleblower legislation
during this session of the House, and I think that also
includes the fall session.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week I asked the
Premier about the Conflict of Interest Advisory
Committee and asked if he could confirm that such a
committee existed and who the members of that committee
might be. I am wondering if the
Premier has had an opportunity to gather that
information to date.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, a Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee does,
in fact, exist under the Conflict of Interest Act. I do
not have the names of the members with me, but I will
certainly provide same in the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In my questioning last
week, I asked the Premier if he would refer the Andy
Wells fundraising dinner situation to that advisory
committee for a decision. Albeit, the dinner may have
been cancelled, the potential conflict has not.
I ask the Premier: Are
you still prepared, or have you committed and referred
that matter to the Conflict of Interest Advisory
Committee to ensure that all of the rules and
regulations outlined in that piece of legislation were,
in fact, followed by Mr. Wells?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is no
dinner, therefore there is no list. Given that there
isn’t a list, there is nothing for the Conflict of
Interest Advisory Committee to consider, to determine
whether or not there was a conflict of interest.
What we have done, Mr.
Speaker, is ensure that we will notify all non-elected
officials of their responsibilities and obligations
under the Conflict of Interest Act. They are required by
this act to self report. We will ensure that they know
all the conditions under which they ought to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I have to ask the
minister, regardless of the existence of a list or who
was on the list, we had an issue here where the head of
the Public Utilities Board, or someone else on his
behalf, was going to engage in an activity that
potentially could be a conflict of interest under the
legislation. Again, for someone to come back after the
fact and say: Well, I am not going to do that now. That
does not clear or get rid of the potential conflict of
interest.
I ask the minister: Are
you saying now that you will not be referring the Andy
Wells situation to the conflict committee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If any conflict of
interest existed, it could only be determined by the
list of people who would attend the dinner and
contribute to the dinner, because if those people had
anything to do with him in his role as the PUB, seeing
who they are and what they did is the only way that that
could be determined. There is no list, Mr. Speaker, so
there is nothing to refer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Budget 2008
did not provide new funding for emergency medical
services in the Province; nor did the government
announce incentives for the retention of rural
paramedics. We are training and then losing rural
paramedics to Alberta and other provinces because they
are not being paid a salary and do not have working
conditions commensurate with others in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Health and Community Services why this
government is not providing incentives to encourage
rural paramedics to remain in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, paramedics
in Newfoundland and Labrador are employed one of two
ways. They are employed by some of the health
corporations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador; there
are many institutional or hospital-based services. In
addition to that, there are many community volunteer
organizations which provide ambulance service in respect
to regions, and there is another group of private
operators out there, I say, Mr. Speaker.
Now, the issues around
compensation for those who are employed with one of our
regional health authorities, they would be a part of one
of the unions, either NAPE or CUPE, and the President of
Treasury Board is in the process of negotiating
collective agreements with those groups as we speak.
The other bodies enter
into a contractual arrangement with government, and that
contract just recently expired. In a very short period
of time government will be negotiating with both the
community operators and the private operators for a new
contractual arrangement to take us into the future.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. the
minister to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Within that contractual
arrangement we will lay out the kind of financial
reimbursement we will provide to those operators, and
those operators will, in turn, use that money - and some
others, possibly - to hire paramedics for their
services, and the compensation that they provide them
will be (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Does
the minister recognize government’s responsibility
with regard to the retention, and is government really
committed to making sure that it is putting things on
the table to deal with the retention issues, not just
sitting back passively but putting concrete things on
the table in the negotiations that he is talking about?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: The
member opposite does not need to stand in this House and
ask a question about whether or not this government is
serious. You just look at the track record of this
government since 2003, since we formed government. Every
single thing that we have done since 2003 as a
government reflects our government’s commitment to
improving the quality of life for the people who live in
this Province; it reflects our commitment to improving
services, enhancing services.
I stood in this House
last week and commented about the significant financial
investment that our government has made. Since we formed
government, it is over $500 million - over half a
billion dollars - of new investment in Health and
Community Services in this Province. So anyone who
stands in this House and asks the question about whether
or not we are serious about improving the lives of
people in this Province, serious about investing in
health care, need not go any further than that very
significant point: half a billion dollars of new money
gone into health since 2003, since we formed government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the New Democratic Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the minister
does not have anything specific to put on the table with
regard to emergency medical services, because that was
my question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS MICHAEL: Mr.
Speaker, on April 22, 2008, the Minister of Education
announced $584,000 for a human simulator for training
emergency response teams at the Bay St. George campus of
the College of the North Atlantic.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: Was her statement a re-announcement of money
that was originally made on August 18, 2006, by the
Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when the
paper mill closed down in Stephenville we made a
commitment to the people of Stephenville and surrounding
areas that we were going to do what we could, as a
government, to help diversify the economy. One of the
integral parts to that was working with the College of
the North Atlantic to expand services, to offer more
programs, so they could bring in people, paramedics, the
Canadian military, people from across Newfoundland and
Labrador, people from across Canada, to participate in
training to help diversify the economy, to mitigate the
impact of 300 people losing their jobs in Stephenville,
and that is exactly what we have done over the course of
the past three years. |
