|
Oral
Questions
May 4, 2009
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the weekend Telegram
there was a full-page ad from the President of the
Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions and the
presidents of other provincial nursing associations
across Canada. They all agreed that the market
adjustment and extended earnings loss clauses proposed
by the government opposite are unheard of in other
nursing union contracts.
I ask the Premier: With
such widespread condemnation of these two clauses, why
are you unwilling to remove them from the negotiating
table?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, both myself and the Minister of Finance have
stated time and time again as to exactly what we have
done for nurses. They wanted an increase in their wages
and we gave them a significant increase in their wages
which, on the template alone, is 21.5 per cent. They
then wanted to deal with recruitment and we dealt with
recruitment. For first-year nurses now it is over 30 per
cent for the raise there. They wanted retention dealt
with, and we dealt with retention as well, so now the
senior nurses, of course, are going to be the highest
paid east of Ontario. They asked for something to be
done with standby fees and we dealt with that. We have
now made them, as well, the second-highest if not the
highest east of Ontario. Shift differential, we did the
same thing. We cannot do any more.
The sad thing now is it
looks like we are definitely going to a strike, if that
strike vote gets a majority, and we are going to find
that if these nurses are out for a month then, in fact,
they are going to actually lose the 8 per cent that we
have given them in the first year of the template, which
is really an unfortunate circumstance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly recognized that there has been a lot of
headway made, both by government and by the union, in
terms of trying to sort out a negotiation.
Mr. Speaker, the national
nursing representatives are charging that this
government wants the power, through the clause of market
adjustment, to negotiate individually and not
collectively. Obviously, a huge union concern.
I ask the government
today, and I ask the Premier: Why
would government want the power to be able to do that?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, collective bargaining is a process of trying to
reach a reasonable agreement which is fair to both
sides. We commenced negotiations with the nurses first
out of the gate, I think it was in January of last year,
and negotiated for three months to no avail. We broke
off. We asked them to come back to the table last June
and they said no, that their negotiators were on
holidays, and we tried again.
It is obvious that there
is a national agenda here. It has become quite obvious
to us right from the start that the national union is
driving this. The whole intention of this is that they
go to strike and, in fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador
nurses will be punished for the benefit of the National
Federation of Nurses right across the nation so that we
can be taken into court and they can try and make a test
case of the Newfoundland and Labrador situation.
That is what this is all
about. We said it was a national initiative right from
the start. We said there was going to be a strike right
from the start, and the fact that we have stepped up and
made our nurses the highest paid, or the second-best
paid east of Ontario does not make any difference.
Ms Forward and her national counterparts have an agenda
and they are going to see through it on the backs of the
nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the market adjustment and the extended earnings
lost clauses do no not save the government money - they
admitted that last week - and it is simply policy
decisions.
I have to ask government
today, and ask the Premier: Are
these two policy decisions worth so much to government,
that you get those concessions now, that you are willing
to push this into a strike and cause further damage in
our health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for the
information of the Opposition Leader, market adjustments
are used throughout this country. They are used in every
province. In fact, it is what we have to do now to try
to be competitive in recruiting and retaining nurses. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, we have had in this particular
Province health boards which are, in effect, competing
with each other; so what we want to be able to do is to
bring all of this under one roof, under Treasury Board,
set a policy, and apply that policy so that it works
towards what we have been told from day one is the
nurses’ number one issue, which is recruitment and
retention.
As for policy decisions,
let me put it to you this way: Other unions had a
problem with this market adjustment; however, Mr.
Speaker, 30,000 public sector employees have signed off
on these conditions.
Now, we have gone outside
the template with our wages so how far do you go, I say
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? We are doing
everything we can to avoid a strike, Mr. Speaker. As the
Premier said, there appears to be a different agenda at
play.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The reality is, the fact
that 30,000 other people have signed on to it does not
make it a good enough rationale that we could
practically see our health care system in this Province
closed down as a result of a strike.
I ask the minister again
today: Will government not go
to binding arbitration on two issues that are not
monetary in nature but are strictly policy, to get an
independent ruling so that this can get settled once and
for all?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr.
Speaker, the Premier indicated last week that we would
not be going to binding arbitration and I can indicate
again today the answer is no.
What we have is a
situation where we have bargained in good faith. We have
done everything that the nurses asked us to do. Our
number one concern is the patients of this Province. We
were criticized for not going outside the template, the
21.5 per cent. We did that. We have increased
significantly the shift differential and standby rates.
We have made our nurses the highest paid east of
Ontario, and the newer nurses the second-highest paid,
so we have given everything that they have looked for.
Mr. Speaker, we have not gotten anything back.
Unfortunately, we are at
a standstill. It is in the nurses’ hands right now and
they will make a decision as to whether or not they go
to strike.
Again, as the Premier has
indicated, it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the
nurses, if they are out for four weeks –
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Many provinces, including
P.E.I. and New Brunswick, have made legislative changes
to allow pharmacists to manage medications without
actually writing prescriptions. It is often referred to
as continuous care. This includes the ability to cover
situations like providing a few pills to a patient until
they can get a prescription filled by a doctor. This
service has been provided by pharmacists in our Province
for a number of years. However, the legislation that
governs it has not been kept up and does not reflect the
realities of how the service is conducted today.
I ask the minister: When
will we see changes to the pharmacy act and some updates
to allow for continuous care by pharmacists in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador we have made a
number of enhancements to our Prescription Drug Program.
We have made some enhancements to the contract that we
have with the Pharmacy Association. In fact, in this
sitting of the Legislature we will be making some
further amendments to the legislation that will permit
pharmacists to fill prescriptions written by physicians
from out of the Province.
The process of enhancing,
the process of improving and providing better quality
care is an evolving process, Mr. Speaker. We have made
some enhancements in the past; we have some more coming
in this session. We have a regular dialogue with the
Pharmacy Association and when it is appropriate, we will
make further enhancements to improve the quality of care
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister knows that
the auditing process that is now in place for
pharmacists has been there for a long time and that
there are a number of concerns that are being expressed
with that. Government legislation does not allow, right
now, for any kind of professional discretion to be used
when it comes to these pharmacists dispensing
medications or drugs.
I ask the minister: In
the meantime, will he commit to putting in place an
improved interim auditing process until some new
legislative changes can be made?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, audits are kind of a sensitive issue. Any time,
whether you are audited by Revenue Canada or whether you
are audited by any taxation body or whether you are
audited by a regulatory body, there is always going to
be, I say, Mr. Speaker, some degree of tension,
sometimes healthy tension, some more times it is
conflict between a regulatory body and an auditing body.
Any time someone is subject to an audit when they have
to either repay money or to change a practice of doing
business there is always going to be differences of
opinion, and the auditing of the Prescription Drug
Program or the auditing of our MCP program are such
programs or such auditing mechanisms. So I say, Mr.
Speaker, by virtue of the nature of how audits are
conducted there is always going to be a difference of
opinion between those being audited and those who are
doing the audits.
This coming Friday, we
are meeting with the Pharmacy Association to discuss the
auditing process and some of the issues that they want
to raise with us. So audits are one of these things that
there is always going to be questions and concerns
about, but we will work with the association to ensure
that it works beneficial for both parties.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
But what they are asking
for is very fair. They are asking for some discretion in
the process so that when there is an order broken, or a
prescription order broken, that they are not laden with
huge fines. They are one of the few places in the
country that has to follow this kind of an auditing
process without any discretion, Mr. Speaker.
I think, minister, I
would ask you again today: In
light of your meeting that is coming up, is it possible
that you could have a look at this to see if there is a
way that the process could be altered in the absence of
any changes that are not coming forward to the
legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I want to correct something. In the member’s
preamble she said there are fines, and I want to point
out, the audit process does not impose a fine. The audit
process is around where – because pharmacists get paid
automatically for the prescriptions that they fill. So
the auditing process is a review of what has taken
place, after the fact.
So therefore, if there
was a prescription filled inappropriately, there is a
recovery of money that has already been paid out, and
that is very different than imposing a fine. So I want
to clarify that particular point, because the member
opposite would have us believe that this is a very
punitive process, and if you did something wrong we are
going to levy a penalty or a fine upon you.
Fundamentally, this is a
process where if an audit discovers something that is
inappropriate, it is a recovery of money that has
already been paid out by government to someone that
should not have necessarily received it. So that is the
process, I say, Mr. Speaker.
The mere fact that I am
meeting with members of the Pharmacy Association on
Friday –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, in January 2008, government announced changes
to its provincial drug formulary so that the Province
would only accept prices for generic drugs that do not
exceed the lowest price in any province. There was a lot
of concern raised at that time by the Pharmacy
Association and government agreed to delay the changes
until the completion of an independent review. That
review was completed more than six months ago.
I ask the minister today:
Can he update the pharmacists
and the people of the Province on what generic drug
formulary government is considering and when we will see
these changes in effect?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I really hate doing this, but if the member
opposite does not get better researchers, I am going to
have to always correct her.
Number one, I did not say
we were going to do an independent audit. The Pharmacy
Association did an independent audit themselves. What I
had indicated was we would defer the implementation of
the legislation until we had worked through an
appropriate mechanism to have a pricing regime that was
fair for generic drugs. We have still done that. We
still have not enacted that legislation, because we
still have not worked through a process that will see us
having a fair and equitable pricing mechanism in this
Province for generic drugs, one that is consistent with
the spirit of the legislation but also one that is fair
to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and fair
to the pharmacists who provide the service to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Until we are finished
that process - in consultation, I might add, with the
pharmacy association - we will not be making any changes
to our current pricing regime.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If the minister was
listening, he would know I did not say government did
the review. I said it was an independent review and it
was asked for by the pharmacy association.
Mr. Speaker, the pending
regulation changes will mean significant savings to
government, and it will also mean that government will
pay a much lower price for generic drugs; however, it
will also mean a loss of revenue to pharmacists.
I ask the minister today:
What would be those projected
savings to government, if you were to implement that
formula, and what would be your plan to offset the loss
of revenue that would occur to pharmacists in the
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I want to refer the member to my previous
answer because there is a linkage here. I said earlier,
in the second question she posed, is that we are not
going to be implementing the changes that are proposed
in the legislation, or enacting the legislation, until
we have been able to work through an appropriate pricing
regime.
So, to answer your
question about how much money we will save, or how much
money it will cost pharmacists, or what we will do to
offset some of those costs, that is something that when
we announce what it is we are doing we will be able to
announce exactly what they will mean.
Until we have done the
analysis, have worked through the process with the
pharmacy association - because we will work through a
process with them - and when we enact the legislation,
then we will be able to inform the House the impact of
the implementation of that legislation at that moment in
time based on the national pricing for generic drugs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister must, at this stage, have some idea of what the
cost savings would be to government to move in this
particular formulary method, and I ask him if he could
provide that information to the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, this is a fairly significant calculation the
member opposite is asking. In fact, this is an issue
that is not just unique to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Every province in the country is facing a similar
circumstance. In fact, a couple of weeks back, in
meetings with my colleagues from the rest of Atlantic
Canada - because they are facing the same circumstance.
They have the exact same set of circumstances before
them as we do here in this Province. As a result of
those discussions we have agreed to work collectively to
have that kind of financial analysis done for Atlantic
Canada. Maybe working together, the four Atlantic
Provinces may be able to come up with a pricing regime
that would benefit all Atlantic Canadians.
The analysis that she is
asking for, and the exact figure that she is asking for,
is one that is not easy to answer, because there are
many variables in that calculation and we need to better
understand it ourselves before we implement it. That is
why we have now extended our research and involvement
with three other Atlantic Provinces to ensure that we
are all best served by what we do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a national policy
and, as the minister knows, eventually we will have to
fall under that regime within Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask him today: Has
he done any kind of analysis around what the value-added
services are that pharmacists provide; and, if we were
to move in this direction, how much that annual
investment would be from government to pharmacies in the
Province in order to maintain the appropriate levels of
service?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: I
do not know how many times I can say this. If you are
asking for a cost of something, and you are asking now:
What is the cost of the services and the value of the
services provided by pharmacists that we would actually
have to contribute, should we implement it? That is a
pretty broad question.
Depending on the kind of
services we are prepared to pay for, depending on what
we pay for, that will determine some costs. Depending on
the negotiations we have with the pharmacy association -
because the member opposite would also recognize and
would be fully aware that there is a contractual
arrangement between the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the pharmacy association on a schedule of
fees that we pay for services, and what those services
will be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, the outcome of these sorts of things comes
about as a result of negotiation between ourselves as a
government and the pharmacy association representing
pharmacists in this Province.
When we have done that, I
will tell the member opposite….
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In November 2008 the
Premier travelled to Brazil to meet with the mining
giant CVRD, the owners of Vale Inco and Voisey’s Bay,
to discuss, among other things, the possibility of
establishing an aluminum smelter in the Province.
The Premier said at that
time that discussions on the issue of aluminum smelters
were also underway with other companies as well. Around
the same time a local economist, known to do work for
government in the Province, reported that he was very
sure that an announcement was due any day.
My question today is: Can
the Premier give us an update in the House as to the
status of an aluminum smelter for Labrador, or has the
recent decline in aluminum prices in the world market
and the decline for service now caused government to
cancel or scrap all plans for aluminum smelters?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: As
the hon. member opposite is aware, a smelter has been a
very, very important piece of possible development for
Labrador adjacency with regard to the Lower Churchill.
It is very, very important that we have a possible
development for Labrador.
When we made the trip to
Brazil, because of the nature of the business that Vale
Inco are in, we discussed with them – because, besides
being top iron ore producers and nickel producers in the
world they are significant aluminum producers, so a
discussion was commenced there about the possibility of
an aluminum smelter in Labrador. Other discussions have
been held with companies lie Rio Tinto and others.
It is all part of the
Lower Churchill discussion and negotiation that power
would come from the Lower Churchill Development. Those
discussions are still being encouraged. Some drop on us,
some fall off, some come on, but there is certainly no
intense negotiation going on now, but it is considered
to be a significant option of the future as commodity
prices improve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I
would like to ask the Premier as well: Has
government, through Nalcor, completed any feasibility
studies on the perspective aluminum smelters for the
Province, and what were the results of these studies?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
personally am not aware of any feasibility studies that
have been done, however I can certainly give the hon.
member opposite the assurance that Nalcor and the
officials at Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
would certainly have looked into the possibility of
feasibility. Now, whether there is, in fact, a formal
study undertaken that has been completed, I am not aware
of that. I can certainly undertake to find out if there
is, in fact, a study that has been completed.
I can tell you, that they
would not even be entering into discussions unless they
had some advanced form of knowledge and understanding of
what the possible economic consequences were.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: It
was recently reported that briefing papers for the
federal Minister of Natural Resources mentioned that Rio
Tinto was promoting an aluminum smelter project for this
Province as well. The project was expected to enter the
federal regulatory review system within six months of
October 2008. That means the smelter should have been
submitted for review by now, but we see no public
announcements on that issue.
I ask
the Premier if he can advise the House today as to the
status of that project.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
can’t give you a formal answer. I would be guessing,
quite frankly. I can tell you, to my knowledge right now
- and again that can be checked with officials of Nalcor.
As you are aware the minister is at the conference at
Houston right now. I am not aware of any formal
submission being made on any smelter, nor do I think
there would be one being made.
As I have said, the
smelter is a part of several options which are available
for the Lower Churchill. We, as a government, and Nalcor
and Newfoundland Hydro, are trying to keep all options
open to make sure that we can obtain the best possible
deal or the best possible alternative creating the most
benefits and employment for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, and as the hon. member opposite is aware,
and our members in Labrador are aware, particularly for
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week I asked the
Minister of Environment and Conservation to update this
House on the action her department is taking to curtail
the decline of the Woodland Caribou in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The minister stated according to Hansard, that
extensive consultation had taken place with the
outfitters. Mr. Speaker, according to our information
there has been no consultation with the outfitters.
Since government announced its caribou plan, the
population of caribou has dropped by 5,000 from 37,000
down to 32,000 and there are only 1,235 licences issued,
so clearly stating the hunters are not the main problem.
I ask the minister: How
low do the caribou numbers have to go before your
government will take action?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one thing
that can be assured, there have been discussions ongoing
with the outfitters. Let that go to rest.
Mr. Speaker, we are in
the process right now of compiling the final data and
information to bring forward a plan for this year. Mr.
Speaker, one thing about it, a $15 million commitment is
no loose change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. JACKMAN: We
are very serious about correcting and remedying, to the
extent that we can, the decline in our caribou
population.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the minister, that $15 million is
no loose change but I can assure you, when your five
year study is done you are going to get the same results
that you have had in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007.
I ask the minister, outfitters
believe caribou will be placed as an endangered species
list well before your $15 million is spent. You have to
intervene with the predators, Mr. Minister. When will
your government take action?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I can honestly say that we certainly do not
think the situation is hopeless or we would not be
investing the money that we are.
Secondly, that any plan
that we bring forward is going to be based on science.
This is not going to be something that is going to be
just a simple measure where you decide that you are
going to go out and kill animals. There is much more to
it than that. We are conducting our science and there
will be an intervention strategy, and when that is
developed to the extent that we need to, we will submit
that the hon. member and all the people of the Province,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, the minister just stated that they are not
going out and killing the animals. So much for the
predators, but I guess he is not too concerned about the
caribou.
Mr. Speaker, the
outfitters were promised fourteen months ago that there
would be a committee put in place so that they could sit
down and consult with government. To date, no such
committee has been put in place.
The outfitters and
environmentalists also suggest that when caribou
populations drastically decline it is a sure sign that
the forest they inhabit if not fairing as well.
I ask the minister: Your
department plans at looking at the issue of health of
the caribou habitat, our forests, some time in the
future, why is this not a focus of the strategy today?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I did not say that we would not be tackling and
taking out some predators. That is all to be determined
at this particular point, but I can tell you that under
this study everything from forest management, to
habitat, to food supply, to predators, all are being
taken under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, with regard
to the advisory committee, we certainly hope to have
that committee all announced, probably within the next
couple of weeks.
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, last
Thursday the Premier promised that any cheque passed
over to AbitibiBowater in compensation for the assets
expropriated by government will have to take into
consideration severance for workers. Mr. Speaker, there
are 119 workers aged fifty-nine to sixty-four who did
not receive their workforce reduction programs cheque
this morning due to AbitibiBowater cutting off their
payments. Mr. Speaker, the workforce reduction program
was a plan worked out with AbitibiBowater in an effort
to take older workers out of the workforce and allow
younger people to remain.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Will he extend to the 119 loggers that had this
agreement with AbitibiBowater the same commitment he
made regarding severances?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as all
members in this House know, the agreement with the
workforce reduction program was three parties. It
included the company, it included the union, and it
included Service Canada. There were particular
arrangements made that allowed some of the older workers
to leave and allowed younger workers to stay. There was,
as the hon. member has indicated, a payment made to
those workers. The company now is in creditor
protection, as we understand. They have made a decision
to take those payments and stop making them. The union,
as I understand it, is intervening on behalf of their
employees, former employees and their pensioners, to
ensure that those payments might be reinstated.
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 say to the Premier,
that the reasons for the severance being stopped are the
same reasons why the payments are not being made, and
that is the bankruptcy protection.
So I ask again: Will the
Premier make the same commitment to the loggers that was
made to those who were getting severances?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, I can only reiterate again, that the decisions
that have been made by Abitibi are going to be, as I
understand it, challenged by the union. There was some
reference made from the opposite side that there was a
decision today from the court that addressed that. That
is not accurate.
The decision made today
from the Quebec court is different than the one that the
hon. member is referring to. As I have said many times
in this House, the court process and all the other
processes that are in place need to be followed and we
need to see what the outcome of those court decisions
will be before government decides whether or not any
involvement is required of government.
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 do not think I made any
reference to the court ruling. Anyway, my next question.
There are also forty-four
seniors, thirty-one of which are widows, who also
received letters last week informing them that their
special retirement allowance will be cut off.
Is the Premier ready to
extend his commitment to these forty-four seniors?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, again, I can only say to you that the
retirement allowances, the workforce reduction program,
these were special arrangements that were negotiated by
the company, by the union, with her workers, and in some
cases involved a third party, such as Service Canada.
The company has
arbitrarily made a decision not to continue with those
payments, and as I have indicated already, it is my
understanding – as recently as a couple of hours ago
when I spoke to members of the union - that the union
will be using the court process that is available to
them to petition on behalf of the people whose payments
have been stopped.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The time allotted for
questions and answers have expired. |
