|
Oral
Questions
May 14, 2009
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In April, May, June and
July of 2008, Eastern Health accumulated over 62,000
hours of nursing time during that four-month period. It
is equivalent to over 5,000 twelve-hour shifts of
overtime.
I ask the Premier: If
he can indicate to us today what other government
employees have that level of overtime in our system, and
I ask if they think this is an acceptable workload to
expect from nurses?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I do not know across government. My colleague,
the President of Treasury Board, might have some stats
across government, but I suspect, Mr. Speaker, I truly
suspect that is probably the highest of any employee
group in the public service.
There are a number of
reasons for that. Last year alone, we have about 5,000
nurses, on average each of them used about twenty days
of unscheduled leave, unplanned leave. Now if you
combine that with the fact that in December, 2008 the
Canadian Centre for Help Information came out with a
stat that said that we have the highest proportion of
nurses working in permanent positions than anywhere else
in the entire country, because that is what the nurses
asked us to do. The compromise here though, Mr. Speaker,
is when you do that, you do not have as many nurses
available for relief. So they have to fundamentally do
their own relief, and that is where the overtime is
driven in many cases.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If you look at those
statistics and you also look at the fact that during
that four-month period there was also 23,000 hours of
overtime accumulated at the Health Sciences Centre
alone, it is a clear indication that there is a lack of
nurses in hospitals in this Province.
I ask the government
today: If this level of
overtime is required to cover regular nursing shifts,
why would government even threaten to remove the
monetary benefits that they were designing to address
the recruitment and retention problem that exists in
this profession?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: What
the member is highlighting here for us is something that
I said yesterday in a couple of comments I made to the
press. The actions and the decisions made by the
nurses’ union to start a job action next Wednesday,
and to remove all overtime, puts the health system in a
much more compromising position than if they had gone
forward with what has normally been referred to as
standard strike, where they withdraw the service and, in
fact, have a picket line and all the other things that
we tend to associate with strikes.
Their decision that they
announced this week puts patients in a much more
compromising position than if they were to ever follow
through with what is normally expected in a strike
situation. Because, in that situation, in order for them
to have a legal strike, they need to have essential
employee agreements in place and that would cover off
those critical areas and would respond to patient safety
issues that are going to arise in the health system, I
say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Not only do we have
concerns with the fact that overtime is being pulled
back by nurses in the Province, but this morning I was
notified in writing by one nurse who had submitted his
resignation to Western Health because of this situation,
and I hope it is not the beginning of more resignations.
I ask government today:
Instead of allowing our system to free fall into a
devastating situation, that we are unable to bring
stability to the health care sector, will you not
reconsider your decisions and go to binding arbitration
on these two issues so that we can avoid any cutback in
overtime, any legislating back to work, and nurses from
resigning from the system?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The law imposes upon us a
duty to bargain in good faith. We have demonstrated our
good faith, Mr. Speaker, by offering significant
increases in wages, by offering to look at other issues.
We were more than generous in our offer to the nurses.
On March 26 we first made the announcement of the steps
we were willing to take.
Mr. Speaker, for six
weeks now we have been begging people to take a 31 per
cent raise. In these economic times it is unbelievable
that it is being turned down. There comes a point in
time, however, where you cannot have your cake and eat
it too.
In this particular case,
the Supreme Court of Canada has said there is a right to
a process, not an outcome. We have bargained in good
faith. It is the nurses’ union that has been
intransigent and inflexible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The government is
insistent on bringing in the labour market adjustment
clause for nurses in this Province, but back a few year
ago there was an issue with regard to recruitment and
retention of nurses in Coastal Labrador communities. At
that time, there was a private negotiation or deal done
between the government and the nurses’ union to pay
out recruitment and retention bonuses to nurses who
would work in Coastal Labrador communities. That was
done in the absence of any labour market adjustment
policy.
Why
does it need to be done differently today? Isn’t the
precedent already there to deal with these situations?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask members for their
co-operation.
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr.
Speaker, from day one in these negotiations the
nurses’ union have maintained that this is about
recruitment and retention. We know that there have been
market adjustments utilized, and are being utilized, by
our health boards. There have been, for example, sign-on
bonuses, there have been other types of recruitment
incentives, and they have been working.
The market adjustment is
something that, as a government, we need to allow
flexibility to address situations in exceptional
circumstances, in hard-to-fill positions. It allows us,
as a government, to deal with the issue of recruitment
and retention, and that is what the nurses have asked us
to do. That is what we have been doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
true, though, Minister, that this clause will allow you,
as a government, to arbitrarily negotiate with
individuals within the health care system and therefore
bypass the union altogether, and give government that
responsibility, and not have to deal collectively with
their union process?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: I
reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that what this clause allows us
to do is to address recruitment and retention, which we
were told by the nurses’ union is their number one
concern.
I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, that 30,000 other public sector employees have
agreed to these clauses, that we have all of the major
unions which have agreed. So, in essence, we have a
clause that is being made the focus of an intention by
the nurses’ union to further a national agenda,
because from day one the president of the union has said
we are going to take the government to court.
Well, I suggest to the
president of the union and her legal advisors that they
might want to have a closer read of that B.C. health
services case than they have done so far.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
What I hear is the
minister admitting that negotiating with the union on
specific cases, like happened with benefit agreements
for recruitment and retention in Labrador, did work and
there needs to be no additional clauses.
Mr.
Speaker, what I do not understand is, in a time when
there is a recognition by the government opposite that
we have a serious deficiency in the nursing profession
in this Province, why they would be threatening nurses
to legislate them back to work if they were to take
strike action under conditions and negotiated conditions
other than what is on the table today. Why would you do
that?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr.
Speaker, I became the Minister of Finance when the world
was turning upside down from a financial perspective. We
have seen the jobs that have been lost across this
country. We have seen the jobs that have been lost in
Grand Falls-Windsor. We know what is going on in
Labrador West.
To offer a starting
nurse, to say to him or her, your salary will be $60,000
after this contract, or by the time it ends, it is a 31
per cent raise. To say to a senior nurse, 72 per cent of
which are on step seven, that you will get a 27 per cent
raise, we will make you the highest paid nurses in
Eastern Canada - east of Ontario, excuse me - Mr.
Speaker, I say is more than generous.
Sixty thousand dollars to
start in a profession is not bad, especially in these
economic times, and, for the life of me, I cannot see
why we are stuck on this market adjustment clause, other
than the union has another agenda and that is what is
going on here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday government
released an external report into the Province’s child
protection system, which demonstrated very little has
changed since the 2003 murder of Zachary Turner. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, the report identified five systematic
barriers to the achievement of a baseline standard of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
I ask the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services - we know that your
government has taken many necessary actions since
receiving this report, including the acceptance of its
ten recommendations. I ask you
today if you can tell the public what the plan and
timelines are for addressing these key findings in the
report.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, we have received the report from Susan Abell,
as I had released yesterday and mentioned here in the
House of Assembly. As Ms Abell points out in the report,
and something that this government has reiterated as
well, in order to truly be able to address the issues
that we have in Child, Youth and Family Services right
now, a series of quick fixes is not going to do it, and
Ms Abell says that in her report. She indicates that it
is going to take years for us to be able to have the
system that we absolutely need in this Province. We are
committed to do that, Mr. Speaker.
One of the first actions
that I will be taking is to appoint the leadership team.
We are going to need people who have a very strong
background in social work and social work theory, and
case management and risk assessment, and who understand
the child protection process. I am hoping within the
next week or so to have that leadership team in place.
We are going to take each
of the areas that have recommendations. We are going to
work with the existing division, the executive, and
through that leadership team we are going to have action
plans, we are going to have time frames, so that we can
monitor our progress and see how we are doing; but, Mr.
Speaker, we are determined that we are going to address
all of these recommendations and build the best system
we possibly can build.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the key systemic
barriers to the improvement of Child, Youth and Family
Services that was identified in the report was the lack
of leadership, and I certainly thank the minister for
acknowledging that and indicating what her intentions
are.
After the release of the
Turner Review in 2006, your government committed to
engage with experts from the Centre of Excellence for
Child Welfare to provide expert knowledge in the area of
research and evaluation and best practices.
I am
just wondering if that did occur. If so, were there any
policies that were reported, or were there any changes
that took place at that time?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, there have been a number of initiatives that
have started following the Turner report. In fact this
government, since 2006, has invested, on an annual
basis, $24 million into Child, Youth and Family
Services.
What is important to note
here, Mr. Speaker - because this is very serious work
that we need to undertake as a department - is that we
cannot go at this in an ad hoc way. We cannot go at this
now and invest in training and development, or invest in
policies and procedures.
We need to take each one
of these recommendations and we need to make sure that
as we address one we fit it together with the next. We
need to do a legislative review; that should drive the
policies and procedures. The policies and procedures
should, in turn, drive the staff development and
training that needs to take place. That, in turn, should
assist in quality control.
So what we need to be
careful of, is no matter what has been done up to this
point, we need to make sure that we look at every piece
of the puzzle and everything fits together; because,
unless it is done with an integrated approach, Mr.
Speaker, we will not be able to build the best system
that we need.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Government funded 129 new
social worker positions since 2006, and I think the
minister indicated that yesterday. Yet, the report notes
that only 50 per cent of the children in care had the
base monthly visit from a social worker, and only 12 per
cent of the children in protective care had such visits.
I ask
the minister today if this was a result of vacancies in
these social work positions and if there was a problem
with trying to fill them. If it was, has that now been
resolved?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, there is no quick or simple answer to why the
social workers did not see the children as required
under the minimum requirements in their jobs, but I will
talk about the workforce instability because that is
something that has plagued this system.
What happens, Mr.
Speaker, is people who come in to do child protection
work do the most difficult form of social work and they
are in the most highly accountable positions that they
can be in. Within the whole system, whether it is Health
and Community Services or Child, Youth and Family
Services, a social worker always has the option to apply
on an internal competition to another position, whether
it is in mental health or addictions, continuing care,
youth corrections, youth services, whatever.
What happens, Mr.
Speaker, is most people will try to get out of these
highly accountable positions because of the
responsibility that these positions entail, and the pay
is equal for each and every social work position,
including the people doing child protection. So a lot of
times we have had case turnover because we have the
newest, most inexperienced workers coming into these
positions who are seeking out other options within the
health care field.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Clinical Services
Review analyzed a random sample of 400 active cases in
Child, Youth and Family Services, and deficiencies were
identified in close to 20 per cent of those cases.
I ask the minister: Have
the cases where a deficiency was identified been
reviewed since you first received the report, and how
will you deal with the more than 9,000 other files that
have not been reviewed to date?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, in the review that was done by Susan Abell and
her colleagues there were sixty-eight cases out of the
400 that were sent back to the regions for immediate
follow-up, so they identified gaps that needed
follow-up. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, what we
have instructed was, we want every case on the
protective intervention caseload reviewed so that any
gaps in services that are identified will need to be
addressed. This has been an ongoing piece of work within
the regional health authorities.
In addition to that, Mr.
Speaker, based on this report, it also notes that there
were a number of cases that were screened out from
receiving services; however, they did have a previous
file with Child, Youth and Family Services or were
recently terminated from the services. I have also asked
that the authorities go back, review the cases that were
screened out, that had previous intervention with the
division, and to ensure that there is an appropriate
critical analysis done to either confirm that it should
be screened out or to provide the appropriate service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act itself
highlighted the harmful effect of judicial delay for
child protection services, and our office has also heard
stories of a two-year wait to have a child protection
case heard in court. We know that your department has
taken a lead on bringing changes to our court system and
to reduce delays for child protective intervention.
I am
wondering if the Minister of Justice, I guess, could
give us an update, and whether your department has
implemented the alternative dispute resolution process
that was announced back in 2008.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, we are committed to doing a legislative review
of the act that guides the work of Child, Youth and
Family Services. It also says in the report that the
legislation we have now is not sufficiently
child-focused, and there is balance that needs to
happen. This is a debate that happens right across the
country, probably across North America and the world,
where we have child protection services. There is a
pendulum that swings between the preservation of the
family or the rights of the child, and be child-focused.
Mr. Speaker, it seems at
this point in time we are probably more leaning towards
family preservation, which is still a very important
concept as we work through these issues, but in saying
that we also need to make sure that our legislation is
child-focused as well.
As we do this legislative
review we will certainly try to strike the balance that
is absolutely necessary with one thing in mind, and that
is the protection of the children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Also with regard to
protective intervention programs, the authors of this
particular report noted that when they were
investigating complaints of child maltreatment, that
social workers’ evidence - I guess there were
collections of information and documentation and
interviews and some other evidence - was not necessarily
documented appropriately in case files.
I ask the minister today:
What immediate measures is your
department taking to ensure that this approach to these
investigations into child maltreatment is being
documented in a more appropriate manner?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, one of the recommendations from the Abell
report also includes documentation, so there is going to
need to be significant work done in that area; but, at a
minimum, because the reports or the files probably have
not been documented appropriately, we have asked - and I
have said this before, and this should capture some of
the issues with documentation - we have asked that all
files under the protective intervention caseload be
reviewed so that we can identify gaps and provide the
appropriate intervention.
I have also asked that
critical analysis be done on the cases that were
screened out. Again, if the documentation was the
problem, or it was not documented appropriately and they
got screened out, they should be captured in this review
so that the appropriate services can be applied.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The report also noted
that 22 per cent of the children in care and 21 per cent
of the youth in care had been in the child welfare
system previously, and it also notes that fewer than 10
per cent of protective intervention cases contained the
family centered action plan.
I ask the minister today:
What will be done to give
parents the skills and resources to provide their
children with a healthy, safe, life home and to end this
instability that have been existing in these caseloads?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, that is a very important question that was just
asked because we are here saying now that we want the
preservation of the family as opposed to taking the
child out, and that is exactly what Susan Abell said was
one of the criticisms of this legislation that we are
working under right now, that it is not child focused.
So we need to be able to look at the protection of the
child and put that as our first priority as opposed to
preserving the family.
Mr. Speaker, there is
also a very sobering statistic that I would like to
share with the people in the House of Assembly today.
Even when the most intensive, in-house interventions are
provided to parents in their homes, studies will reveal
that still 40 per cent of children in those homes will
suffer re-abuse.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to switch to the
Minister of Natural Resources.
Eighty-seven silviculture
workers in Central Newfoundland have run out of work in
the woods and they are wondering when government is
going to launch its program with regard to silviculture.
There are 3 million seedlings and 1,100 hectares of
land, I think, to be planted and many of these workers
are unsure if they are going to be recalled to work.
I ask the minister today:
What the plan is for these
employees?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
There are several
agencies that do silviculture in our timberlands in this
Province. As a government, we have people,
silviculturists who work for the government and do work
on behalf of the government. Abitibi had silviculturists
who worked for them and were under the CEP and worked
under that organization. We have a non-profit
organization that operates in the Province who does
silviculture work in the Province.
In terms of our own
government program, Mr. Speaker, that work is proceeding
as it does on an annual basis. In terms of the
silviculturists who were affected by the shutdown of
Abitibi, we are working very closely with them, Mr.
Speaker, to try and be innovative and find ways to get
the work that Abitibi normally would have done,
completed this season.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I understood that there was a five-year
silviculture agreement that existed between the Province
and AbitibiBowater, and these eighty-seven employees
have been telling me that there is something like 3
million seedlings that need to be planted. They thought
they would start work a week ago but they have not been
notified and had any response from government.
So I ask the minister
today: Can she give a firm
commitment that these people will indeed have a job and
that these seedlings will be planted this spring?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there
is an agreement between the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador and Abitibi for silviculture work. Abitibi
was responsible for having that work done. The
silviculture people who did that work were part of the
CEP, separate from government’s silviculture program
and also separate from a silviculture program that is
also delivered by a non-profit agency.
Our program is going
ahead as per usual, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to work
with Abitibi and with the silviculturalists and their
union to find an innovative way to get Abitibi’s work
done, because Abitibi has indicated that they are not
going to do the work. We are finding a way, working with
the union, to ensure that that work goes ahead and
hopefully we will be able to make an announcement in the
very near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
On March of this year,
the last remaining pulp and paper mill in the Province,
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, announced an eight-week
shutdown of the number four paper machine, resulting in
a temporary layoff of thirty unionized workers. This
shutdown was scheduled to be from March 22 to May 17.
This week, the company announced that the machine will
not be brought back into operation. It will remain idle,
indefinitely, and those thirty workers will remain
unemployed.
I ask the Minister of
Natural Resources: What, if
any, discussions have been ongoing between government
and the company with respect to number four and to
ensure that it will re-operate in the future?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Forestry Sector.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, first of all
I have to correct the Opposition House Leader. Thirty
people were not laid off. Thirty people were affected.
In fact, there has been no job loss. There has been
hours of workers on the call-in list affected but there
have been no layoffs permanent or temporary as a result
of the shutdown of number four.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Corner
Brook Pulp and Paper made it quite clear in their
announcement yesterday that markets have not improved.
In fact, one of their largest customers does not have
the need and requires less paper.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS DUNDERDALE: So,
because of those circumstances, number four will, from a
month-to-month basis, continue to be shut down.
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, we know that
there is a great deal of anxiety felt by offshore
workers and their families about the resumption of the
helicopter flights to the offshore installations. We
have heard from some of these workers that even after
the company briefings they are still very concerned that
flights could be starting as early as Monday of next
week. Industry is adhering to the standards required to
operate in the offshore but the anxiety among workers is
that the standards are not good enough.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Will this government bring to the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum
Board a request that the board include in its review –
the review that is carrying out regarding helicopter
transport – the question of the adequacy of safety
standards?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The transportation of
workers offshore by helicopter is regulated by Transport
Canada Aviation. The Leader of the NDP is correct in
saying that the C-NLOPB does have a role in terms of its
chief safety officer, in also ensuring that the mode of
transportation is safe and secure, and that is their
job. They have a primary concern with the safety of
employees on helicopter travel back and forth to the
rigs. We have every confidence, Mr. Speaker, that they
will exercise that responsibility; do everything that
they can to ensure that the safety of workers is
protected.
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.
Since the March 12
accident, safety in the offshore has become a very
public matter.
Mr. Speaker, on March 23
we asked if government would support making public the
safety audits for all areas conducted by the C-NLOPB
and, Mr. Speaker, at the time the Minister of Natural
Resources said she would take the request under
advisement.
So, it has been almost
two months now, Mr. Speaker, and could the minister
update the House on her efforts in this regard?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this
government is very concerned with safety in the
offshore. Even though we do not have any direct
responsibility for the safety of our offshore workers,
it is something that we pay a great deal of attention
to. Even more emphasis has been brought to it, given the
tragic circumstances that we have had to deal with in
the last several months.
We are very pleased with
the processes that are in place. We have confidence in
Transport Canada Aviation, and we are very pleased that
the board is doing its own inspections, doing its own
review of the safety methods.
In terms of releasing
information, Mr. Speaker, we always encourage all of our
boards and agencies where it is - there is no comprising
to individuals, or to the work of the board or the
agency that they make as much information available to
the public as they can.
MR. SPEAKER: Order
please!
The time allotted for
questions and answers have expired. |
