|
Oral
Questions
April 28, 2009
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was recently revealed
on the Fisheries Broadcast that the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture had rejected a decision of the
Fish Processing Licensing Board for a shrimp licence for
the Beothuk Fisheries Plant in Valleyfield.
The former chair of the
board, Mr. Richard Cashin, said that he felt this was
the worst decision that he had ever witnessed by the
Department of Fisheries and certainly was not made in
the best interests of the industry.
So I
ask the minister to outline for us today the reason why
he rejected the recommendations of the board.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, I think it is common knowledge throughout the
industry, and certainly this government has taken a
position that the capacity within the shrimp industry is
to a point right now where the individual thresholds of
the plants are not being met, and until those thresholds
are met, we as a government cannot see issuing any new
licences at this particular time. It was on that basis
that my decision was made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
There were also some
interesting allegations made by the minister’s
colleague, who happens to be the MHA for Bonavista
North, in which he stated that the minister was actually
wrong in his decision to reject the licence and it had
nothing to do with overcapacity. He went on to state,
Mr. Speaker, that the minister had been fooled by the
lobbying of other processors.
I ask you today,
minister: Was your decision
impending upon the lobby efforts of big fish businesses
in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I
guess, Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is
absolutely no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The MHA for Bonavista
North also stated that the decision to reject the
licence was a bad one and that he indeed did have input
on the issue.
I ask the minister: Did
your colleague provide you with any facts, and if so,
why did you reject the advice and the information that
he was giving you, along with the information and the
recommendations of the licensing board under which your
government established?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, I say on behalf of this government that we do
listen. We listen to everyone, I guess, but there comes
a point where we have to stand by our principles as a
government, and the principle I have already outlined to
you. We are not deviating from that. It is in the best
interests of the industry.
We take advice, but I, as
a minister, have to basically make the decision. The
decision was made, it is the right decision, and I will
live by that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cashin also stated
that he has lost confidence in the process of awarding
licences through the Fish Licensing Board, and he
remarked that government’s experiment in independence
has come to an end in that regard.
I ask the minister: If
you are going to make the final decisions around fish
licensing in this Province, why do we even have a board?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, that board was set up for a very good reason.
It was to make sure that it was open, that is was
transparent, that all parties were aware of what was
going on, and 99 per cent of the decisions, obviously,
were certainly accepted.
This particular decision
that was put before me was not acceptable, for the
reasons that I have pointed out to you. Again, I stand
by the decision that I made. It was the right decision,
the decision that is in the best interests of this
industry, and that is where we stand right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
So the board is
independent as long as they toe the government line, as
long as the decision-making is not contrary to what the
government believes.
Mr. Speaker, Richard
Cashin is well known for his knowledge around the
fishing industry, and is a real visionary for the future
of the industry. I am sure that is the reason why
government appointed him to that position in the first
place.
I ask the minister today:
Why was Mr. Cashin not
reappointed to serve on this board? Was it because of
this issue around licensing, and can you tell me who
will be appointed as the next chair of the board?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Cashin served out his term. His term was up
in March, and it was the decision of the government to
move forward with another chair. The naming of that
chair is pending, and I guess it would be inappropriate
for me to name any names until that is done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Just
like Memorial University, Mr. Speaker, if we don’t
like the decisions you make we will get rid of you. We
will clean house. We will bring in a new slate.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we
asked the Minister of Finance why government would not
go to binding arbitration with nurses on the extended
earnings loss benefits and the market adjustment clauses
in order to avoid a strike in this Province and protect
the healthcare and the welfare of the people who depend
upon the service.
I did not get an answer
from the minister yesterday, and today I pose my
question to the Premier: To
ensure that there is stability in our system, and to
avoid a strike, will government commit to binding
arbitration on the two issues that are outstanding with
the nurses?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely
not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we realize
that government has made good progress in these
negotiations, and we acknowledge that. We also
acknowledge the fact that there are no monetary issues
left on the table. As per the minister’s comments
yesterday, these two issues are policy related and they
are at no cost to the government.
I ask again: In
light of that fact, why would government not go to
binding arbitration, knowing that there isn’t any
cost, and avoid a strike so that people in this Province
do not have to go through a system where operating rooms
will be closed, where hospital beds will be closed, and
where they will not get the necessary treatment they
require? Why not take it that extra step and go to the
arbitration process?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, we went through a lengthy process with nurses.
We gave them every accommodation. We started early, well
over a year ago, nearly a year-and-a-half ago now. We
asked to meet during the summer; they did not want to
meet. We then came back and we addressed the pay issues.
They wanted an increase in pay; we addressed that
significantly with the template. They wanted recruitment
addressed, and we addressed that. They wanted retention
addressed, and we addressed that. They wanted standby
addressed, and we addressed that. They wanted shift
differential addressed, and we addressed that. We have
now placed them either one or two in Eastern Canada,
east of Ontario. That includes Quebec and all the
Maritime Provinces. We have stepped up. We have offered
them an extremely generous package, and it is a package.
If they wanted to take
away their template, or take away parts of their
template, or they want to take away all of the extra
benefits that they have given them, then perhaps we can
start to look at another package, but that package is
complete. It is the very, very, very best offer that we
can make. We cannot just keep stepping up every time
they want to add on to the equation. It is not going to
happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, last night we received a letter from the
alliance of provincial groups who serve youth in the
Province when it comes to addiction services. These
organizations, including the Recovering Addicts
Fellowship Team, the Community Youth Network, Turnings
and Choices for Youth, have come together to form an
alliance and are expressing concerns over the recent
announcement to place the youth residential treatment
facility in Grand Falls, Windsor. They have posed a
number of questions to government, Mr. Speaker, and we
are certainly prepared to pose these questions in the
House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, they stated
that those youth who are affected, the majority of them,
are in the Eastern Region of the Province. My question
to the minister is: What are
the clinical advantages to placing this facility in
Central Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: What
I find interesting in the House, Mr. Speaker, is how
questions have changed over the years. For many years in
this House members opposite have raised questions
around, what are we doing for rural Newfoundland? Now,
all of a sudden, we are getting questions in the House
lobbying for St. John’s, Mr. Speaker. They want all
services centralized in St. John’s.
Mr. Speaker, I answered
questions in this House a couple of weeks ago around
this very same point. One of the critical considerations
for us as a government was to ensure that we are able to
provide quality programming with capable, competent
people, and we are very confident – we are very
confident indeed - that Central Newfoundland, and in
particular Grand Falls-Windsor, is a community in a
region of the Province that can attract the kinds of
people that we need. We are very confident that we are
going to be able to provide the kind of programming that
will respond to the challenging needs of those
individuals who need that kind of addiction services.
So we stand by the
decision to locate this new facility and this new
program in Grand Falls-Windsor because we believe it
will be successful and the people of all of Newfoundland
and Labrador will be well served by that new program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think the
government should be offended that there are four groups
in this Province, who represent youth and youth
treatment, who would question your decision, Mr.
Speaker. In fact, they have every right to question it.
These individuals are
telling us that they have spoken to many groups who work
in addiction services right across the Province, and
that those individuals feel that the location of the
facility is unacceptable, that it is unsuitable, and
that it was chosen merely for political reasons.
I ask the minister today:
Who did your government consult
prior to making the decision to place this important
residential treatment facility in the Central Region of
the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Again
I am somewhat bewildered by the nature of the questions
and the persistence, Mr. Speaker, of members opposite.
I do not have any
difficulty, as a minister, and none of my colleagues on
this side of the House would have any difficulty,
meeting with any group in the Province to talk about
issues of their concern. So, if there are organizations
who would like to come in and talk with me about this
decision, I am open to do that at any time of the day.
Just invite me, or make the request, and I will have the
discussion.
What I find very ironic,
Mr. Speaker, is the persistence by not only the Leader
of the Opposition but the Opposition House Leader in the
continuous questions in this House, bringing into
question a decision that we made about a location of a
service in Grand Falls-Windsor. An attack, I say, Mr.
Speaker, it is nothing more than an attack on the people
of Grand Falls-Windsor and the people of Central
Newfoundland and Labrador, as if it is a place no one
would want to work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, what rubbish I have just heard coming out of
the minister!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the minister has a responsibility, and a
responsibility to provide services in this Province
based on clinical cases and factual information, not
based on what is politically opportunistic for the
government –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. member to
complete her question.
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the minister
has trouble defending his actions today - that is quite
obvious by his comments – but there are four groups in
this Province who provide services and treatment to
residential youth, and they have serious questions.
Mr. Speaker, the day
treatment program that services addictions for youth is
based in the St. John’s region, and I guess one
of the questions they have is why government would
choose to separate those two facilities and those two
lots of services.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I do not have any difficulty at all, none
whatsoever. I have no difficulty at all, or this
government has no difficulty at all, in defending a
decision to relocate a service in Grand Falls-Windsor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: A
community, Mr. Speaker, that has demonstrated their
innovative approach to providing health care. They have
been leaders on a number of fronts. They have a very
comprehensive mental health and addictions program
already in existence there. They have proven they have
the ability to be able to attract the qualified
professionals that we will need to run this program. It
is a community that is centrally located, provides easy
access in and out of other parts of the Province;
because, keep in mind, this is a provincial centre, not
a St. John’s centre.
This is purely a
provincial centre. It is centrally located, provides
ease of access by road or by air, and it provides the
professionals that will provide the delivery of those
programs, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the other issues
that they raise is around the detoxification services. I
ask the minister today: Is that
part of the program for this centre, and will the people
of the Province who need the service be assured that
they will have access, and affordable access, to that
service?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: To
the first part of the question, yes, it will include a
detox program. The second piece, by definition - I have
said before, but let me repeat it - this is a provincial
program. It is a provincial program and we are
delivering it from Grand Falls-Windsor. By definition,
every single person who lives in Newfoundland and
Labrador will have access to that particular program and
that particular facility.
This is not a regional
facility. This is a provincial facility, so anyone who
needs it will have access to it, just like Humberwood
does in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order
please!
MR. WISEMAN: This
is purely a provincial program, no different than any
other provincial program; because we have many
provincial programs in St. John’s. People travel to
St. John’s to access provincial programs here. Now
people will travel to Grand Falls-Windsor to also access
a provincial program, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Native Friendship
Centre has also raised an issue around the Aboriginal
component for this treatment process. They are asking if
it will include an Aboriginal component in the program. I
ask the minister today if he will commit to that.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, it will absolutely give consideration to the
Aboriginal community. In fact, as we develop the
program, as we start to look at the design of the
building, the programming will be driving the design and
the program will give consideration to the Aboriginal
needs of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, earlier this month The Telegram reported
that government had hired an environmental consultant to
conduct testing for the presence of hazardous material
at the former Janeway site in Pleasantville. The report
was submitted and received by government a few weeks
ago. I ask the minister: Can he
please advise the public what the results of the report
were, and whether there are any hazardous materials
remaining at the site.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, as part
of the demolition of the Janeway site we insisted that
the contractor engage an environmental consulting firm
to assess the work as it was being done, to ensure that
there was no contamination left, to ensure that the site
was completely remediated.
Back a couple of months
ago there was some concern expressed by Occupational
Health and Safety and Government Services when they had
done some inspections. They issued a stop work order.
Our officials in the Department of Transportation and
Works met with officials from the company at the time,
the contractor, and insisted that there be an
independent firm, independent of the government and
independent of the contractor, to go in and assess the
site. There was some level of asbestos containing
material found in a number of the test holes that were
done. Probably, my guess is around 25 per cent of the
holes had some level of contamination. It is being
reviewed now to see if it is within acceptable limits.
Mr. Speaker, I will be able to inform the House at a
future date as to exactly what that is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As a follow up to that
story, workers with a construction company cleaning up
the site are speaking publicly that there are old fuel
tanks that are leaking oil and making the workers sick.
They are also raising concerns that government is not
taking the issue seriously and may not address the
problem.
I ask the minister: What
is government planning to do to clean up the old fuel
tanks that are buried at the site to ensure that the
health and safety of the workers and the residents are
taken care of?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the fuel
tanks that are on site at the old Janeway. There was
actually a piece included in the tender call for the
possible removal of those tanks by that contractor.
Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest to the contractor that if they have a problem
with air quality there are appropriate breathing
apparatuses and clothing and what have you that people
are supposed to be wearing. That is part of the reason
why Occupational Health and Safety put a stop work order
in place on that site back some time ago because the
contractor was not using the appropriate safety
equipment. So I suggest that the contractor get the job
done that he is contracted to do.
We have every intention
of removing the tanks. It may or may not be by that
contractor. We have the option to have that contractor
remove them, but we also have the option to have
somebody else remove them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If I understood the
minister, you said that the first tender that went out
included the removal of those fuel tanks from that site.
From that, I just ask the minister again for further
clarification.
Once the report came
back, was the oil tanks a part of that report that came
back, because I think there was some concern why the
report was not released and they felt that it should not
be released too early it would complicate other issues.
I just ask the minister: What
was in the report that has not been released and was of
concern at that particular time?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr.
Speaker, the environmental work that was done, that we
insisted on having done over the course of the past
month or so had nothing to do with the oil tanks. We
knew that the oil tanks were there. As I said, when the
original tender was awarded to - I will not get into the
construction company, but it is well known, it was in
the paper. Anyway, it was Kelloway Construction. There
was a piece in there – I was not going to say it, but
it was in the paper, so why not?
There was a piece in
there – I forget what the dollar figure is exactly
right now, but we could have engaged that contractor, if
we so desired, and the dollar figure was identified for
that contractor to remove the fuel storage tanks and
remediate that site as well, but it was not something
that absolutely had to be done by them.
We have every intention
of removing the tanks. However, Mr. Speaker, as I said,
it may or may not be by that contractor. I suggest that
it will have a lot to do with how well he does the job
that he is tasked to do right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, my next question is to the Minister of
Government Services.
Back in 2004, 229 of our
schools were identified as requiring air quality testing
for asbestos. However, in the 2009 Auditor General’s
Report it was noted that only 28 per cent of those
schools had been tested by April, 2007.
I ask the minister: How
many of these schools are still waiting to receive
proper asbestos testing, and how long will it take to
complete the remaining inspections?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, we
continuously do inspections with all of our buildings,
and certainly our schools, and the question that is
asked today, I will take under advisement. I will get
back to the House with the answer for you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, air quality and toxic mould in schools are
serious issues in this Province. The incidents of air
quality problems continue to disrupt the academic year
for students, teachers, and staff.
Back in 2006, we asked
the Minister of Education whether she would carry out a
comprehensive review of air quality in all the schools
across the Province. We raised it again last year, and
again the need for such a review has been dismissed by
the minister. In the meantime, the air quality issue has
resulted in permanent closure of one school and
temporary closure of ten schools.
I ask the minister: How
many more closures will it take to convince the minister
that there may be some merit in carrying out a
comprehensive review of air quality in the schools?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly pleased to take that question.
I think the member
opposite is fully aware that our government is committed
to ensuring safe environments in our schools for our
students and our staff.
I think the member is
also fully aware that we have engaged in an enhanced
inspection process that puts us in a very good position
to respond to schools that are in need and experiencing
air quality problems.
I remind the member that
it is only this year we have reached $125.5 million in
investment in repair and maintenance in our budget for
schools, Mr. Speaker, because this side of the House and
this government is committed to ensuring that our
students get the best possible quality of education and
the best possible learning environment we can provide.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his question, but I
have to go back again and ask him: Is
he convinced that there may be some merit in carrying
out a comprehensive review of air quality in our
schools?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Mr.
Speaker, I say to the hon. member opposite, if I were
convinced that that was the way to go, we would be doing
that right now. We are convinced, based on the
professional advice that we receive from professionals
in the field, that the enhanced inspection is the
process to take and the way to go, and that is where we
are headed as a government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, my next question is also for the Minister of
Education.
The Auditor General’s
report of 2009 recommends that the Department of
Education in cooperation with the school districts and
the Department of Government Services establish a
centralized information system to ensure that the
monitoring of school inspection issues and any action
taken be recorded properly and shared by all
stakeholders.
I ask the minister: Have
you started this database for information relating to
air quality testing as recommended by the Auditor
General, and if so, when will this information be
available to the public?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to inform
the House that we have indeed started that process and
we are moving along. I cannot tell the member opposite
the exact date when it will be ready, but I will
certainly look to provide some information and give you
clarity on that.
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, I few weeks
ago I brought up the issue that patients from Labrador
West were forced to move to other parts of the Province
to receive kidney dialysis because of the lack of
service in their own community.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Health and Community Services did commit to looking
into the state of dialysis in Labrador West. I would
like to ask the minister to give the House an update
about how the issue of these dialysis needs in Labrador
West is being dealt with.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I can. As I
indicated in the House some time ago, the issue of
dialysis services in Labrador West had been raised by a
number of people, including my colleague, the MHA for
that district. I gave an undertaking that we would start
to look at dialysis services in that region.
What has happened since
then? There have been a couple of things really, one at
the community level. There has been a local community
that has been mobilized to work with the health
authority, to start looking at dialysis services for the
region. More precisely: how do you deal with patients
who end up with end stage renal failure? That is the
bigger question in these dialysis services.
One of the things that
has happened is that the nephrologist who takes care of
that area, together with the regional health authority
and that local committee, has been looking at those
individuals in the past who have needed the service, and
a profile of those who may need the service in the
future. When they are finished their piece of work they
will come forward to me with a series of recommendations
and I will be able to provide a more appropriate update
at that time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to hear what
the minister has said, and I did receive some
information to that effect today, but it has been
pointed out to me that the doctor who has been assigned
to look into the cases of the seven patients from
Labrador West has been away for two weeks and people do
not know when that doctor is coming back.
Is the minister willing
to look into this and to see how quickly this process is
going to be dealt with?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, the physician involved, as I understand it, is
a nephrologist, someone who has been following these
patients. Basically, this is a highly specialized area
and only nephrologists are in the best position to
provide some clinical assessment of the appropriateness
and the nature of the treatment individuals get. So if
the individual is on vacation during this period of
time, which is not unusual, many people take vacation
during the Easter period. So I am assuming, because we
have not had a resignation, this must be a temporary
absence. The work is committed to be done and I am
certain upon his return that the work will continue. As
I said earlier, when the committee finishes their work
they will make a series of recommendations to me and I
will be able then to determine what the future would be
for services in Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Member for
the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, since the
issue of the lack of dialysis treatment in Labrador West
came to the forefront we have heard from other areas in
the Province, for example, the Southwest Coast and the
Burin Peninsula. There are great concerns about the
distances that people have to travel to access dialysis.
As the minister just pointed out, not just in Labrador
West but also in Central Newfoundland in particular
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS MICHAEL: -there
is quite a list of patients who are pre-renal and we
know that this issue is going to increase as time goes
on.
I ask the minister, Mr.
Speaker: Will the minister, along with the members of
the Department of Health and Community Services, look at
working with the regional authorities in developing a
province-wide system dealing with the need of dialysis?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: It
is interesting the member opposite asked a question
about, will we do something? The workings of that have
already been done, I say, Mr. Speaker. Back some time
ago, as a department, we established a provincial
consultant to deal with dialysis services. We had the
Centre for Health Research at Memorial help develop a
protocol for establishing dialysis services in various
parts of the region -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. WISEMAN: -
and a criteria to determine the level of service that
should be provided in what regions and how we determine
those individuals who are appropriate to be on a
satellite dialysis service, those individuals who are
more appropriately served on a home-based dialysis
service. So that piece of work, Mr. Speaker, is well
advanced.
One of the challenges we
have in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker, is the lack
of uptake on home dialysis. Many other jurisdictions in
this country use home-based dialysis more frequently
than we do in this Province. So it is an education piece
that we need to do, Mr. Speaker, to make sure people who
need dialysis services fully appreciate that there are
areas to do that other than in institutions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please.
The time for questions
and answers has expired. |
