|
Oral
Questions
May 27, 2009
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, due to a fire
at the building housing the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, government computing services went
off-line, and we know that an essential element of
emergency planning is a Business Continuity Plan, or BCP.
Under a BCP, government would be able to continue
internal and external operations and services.
I ask the government
today: What is the state of the
business continuity planning within government, and who
is responsible for it?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that what happened
yesterday is that there was an electrical malfunction in
the electrical substation at the OCIO building on
Higgins Line. This not only caused a power disruption,
but the backup power system was disrupted by this
electrical problem.
In essence, Mr. Speaker,
what happened was, the backup system was also affected;
however, the backup continuity plans that are in place
in each department were then in force. Everything was
started to be brought back on-line within a short period
of time, and it is my understanding that within four to
six hours everything started to get back up at full
speed.
There is no question that
something like what happened yesterday is of concern,
but it was dealt with. Each department has a backup
continuity plan. I think even, for example, in HRLE
there was the manual writing of cheques.
Everything, Mr. Speaker,
went as it should and the backup continuity plans were
certainly put in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the minister could
tell us, then, when we can
expect a complete report on what happened, why there was
an electrical occurrence there, and why some of the
backup plans did not work in certain cases, such as
being able to continue to access government computers,
the Prescription Drug Program, Income Support services,
and things of this nature.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Over the last period of
years the OCIO has done, I would suggest, absolutely
wonderful work. In the period of time that the OCIO has
been in place, the Chief Information Officer Peter Shea
and his people have certainly addressed many issues that
were lacking in government, such as information
technology and information management.
Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding, over a period of time, the budget has
increased since 2005 from $33.5 million to $70.2 million
in 2008-2009. The office deals with issues such as
backup continuity plans and addresses issues such as
were raised in the Auditor General’s report this year.
It is currently being
investigated fully, and hopefully we will be in a
position in the very near future to know exactly what
took place, how we can prevent it from happening in the
future, and how to address situations that arise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a system that was
created by the government opposite, and I am glad the
minister mentioned that the revenue invested in it has
increased by over 50 per cent in the last number of
years. When you have that much money being spent, I
would think you should have a stable and reliable
service.
I ask
the minister today if government is prepared - in light
of the fact that there have been millions and millions
of dollars invested already - to initiate a review of
the government’s computing strategy with respect to
OCIO and to see if it is a stable solution for us in the
future.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr .Speaker.
The first point I would
make is that, contrary to any suggestion by the Leader
of the Opposition, it is certainly a very stable system
operating here under the OCIO. What we had yesterday was
a situation arising, and connecting switches made
inoperable. At that point, then - contrary to what I
said a few minutes ago, it not a backup plan - there are
Business Continuity Plans that are put in place. They
are put in place of priority. Then, as the system goes
down, it is brought back on-line in terms of these
priorities. What we have is - for example, the
government e-mail was down - it starts to come back, as
we all saw yesterday.
We have HRLE. We have the
more critical services which, in terms of the Business
Continuity Plan, are brought back on-line. The
Prescription Drug Program is one of them, and support
services under the Department of Justice. The Business
Continuity Plans are executed in terms of the order of
being most critical, and that is what took place
yesterday.
We will continue to
investigate. We will try to find out exactly what
occurred, and how to prevent this in the future.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Goose Bay air base
has two runways that can be used by fighter jets. The
selection of which runway a jet lands on is determined
by the direction of the wind. It was recently brought to
our attention that one of these aircraft arresting
systems servicing runway 1634 in Goose Bay will be
removed by the Department of National Defence.
I ask the minister today:
Have you been made aware of
this decision, and has any representation been made to
the federal minister in an attempt to reverse this
action?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not aware that we
have been contacted by the military or Transport Canada
or anyone else as to any change in status at the Goose
Bay Airfield, but I will endeavour to find out what the
status of it is, after Question Period, and report back
to the House if we have been contacted.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This is an issue that has
been ongoing for several months, I say to the minister,
locally. Right now there are currently no fighter jets
that operate out of Goose Bay, but we do know that the
air base there has the potential, with the appropriate
level of promotion by the federal government, to
reinforce, or enforce again, its allied forces. Mr.
Speaker, removing the aircraft arresting system, which
we understand now will be moved to Trenton, will
certainly impact their ability to market that runway for
future flight activity.
I ask
the minister if the Province will be conducting any
analysis as to what the removal of this system will mean
to the local economy and to getting training flights
back in operation in Goose Bay.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Any time anyone takes any
infrastructure out of Goose Bay it is a very important
thing for us, and we want to hold the feet to the fire
of the federal government to make sure they live up to
the commitment of 5 Wing Goose Bay. If they are going to
take any infrastructure that impacts on the military
flights and training up in Goose Bay we are certainly
going to make ourselves make that known to the federal
government.
As of yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, I wrote a letter to Minister MacKay explaining
the situation there and asked him to verify that. If he
comes back to verify that they are taking any
infrastructure out of that, then they will hear back
from this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We have also been told by
the Department of National Defence officials that should
the equipment be required in the future they would
consider reinstating it. But, Mr. Speaker, we all know
that if you are trying to promote an airbase to allied
forces that they are more inclined to look at that as a
potential place of operation if the proper equipment is
there and operational.
I have to ask the
minister: Are there any kind of
meetings that you are looking at scheduling? Have you
been in contact with the local community in Goose Bay?
Has this incident been reported to you in a manner in
which you should have, and could have dealt with as the
minister responsible?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. DENINE: Yes,
Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of conversations with
the Minister of Labrador Aboriginal Affairs and
basically, both of us are on the same page. Also, the
council up there are well aware of it. What has happened
up there, Mr. Speaker, there is speculation up there
that this is what is going to happen, that the federal
government are going to relocate that (inaudible).
Speculation, we have not verified it yet.
The letter that I sent
off to Minister MacKay will verify that. Once I know
that, then we can talk exactly what we are talking about
here. The other issue is that I have also instructed my
officials to contact Minister MacKay’s office to set
up a meeting to discuss this very issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, another issue
that the Province is not engaged in and could mean the
demise of another economic structure in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: In light of what is
happening have there been any discussions recently at
all with the federal government as to what the future
operations will be at Goose Bay or is this just another
way where they can look at pulling services out all
together?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr.
Speaker, I am dumbfounded how one person would twist the
words that I have just said. Really!
Mr. Speaker, anything and
all things that affect 5 Wing Goose Bay this government
is committed to, and we want to hold the feet to the
fire of the federal government of their commitment.
Anything that happens, we will make sure that they live
up to their promise, or their commitment.
Mr. Speaker, I have
instructed my staff to go back to Minister MacKay to
look for a meeting ASAP to discuss this very issue
because anything of infrastructure taken out of Goose
Bay will devaluate the valuable possession that they
have up in Goose Bay.
And by the way, Minister
Hickey, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, is there now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year I asked the
Minister of Health if there were plans to implement an
applied behaviour analysis, an ABA program for autistic
children over the age of six. At that time the minister
responded that him and the Minister of Education would
sit down, they would have a discussion around the ABA
program, the supports that were provided to autism both
in the education system and in health and community
services.
I ask the minister, that
was a year ago: Did you ever
have those discussions with your colleague and if so,
was any progress made to help autistic children?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Yes,
I did have such a discussion and there has been much
progress, Mr. Speaker, and I am certain my colleague,
the Minister of Education, would be able to elaborate as
well on some of the things we have done with children
with autism.
Later today in debate, it
is going to be the subject of a private member’s
resolution and I am certain that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador will get an opportunity to see
first-hand a number of the things that we have been
doing to support children and their families who are
living with autism.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
With complaints from the
parents of autistic children who say that school
officials are not properly trained to meet their
children’s needs, I ask the minister today: Has
there been any new training programs established for
officials so that the needs of autistic children can be
met in our education system?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member
opposite for her question. It is certainly a very
important topic, and as my colleague has just alluded to
a few moments ago, one that we are going to have a great
amount of time later this afternoon to debate and
discuss.
I will say to the member
opposite, if she is interested in listening to me give
her an answer for a moment, we are certainly indeed
working with the Autism Society and school districts. We
have committed a significant amount of money over the
last twelve months in particular towards teacher
professional development along with a number of other
initiatives that are supported by parents and the Autism
Society in the Province to support ongoing initiatives
in the K-12 sector.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister
indicated, we will be debating a private member’s
motion today on existing autistic services for children.
I ask the minister: With
the increasing number of children diagnosed with autism
in our Province each year, does the minister intend on
extending the ABA program to children beyond the age of
six?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Mr.
Speaker, I am certain, based on the fact that they would
have consulted before the private member’s motion
today, that the member opposite would know that there is
not unanimous agreement that the ABA is the absolute,
best alternative for students in the K-12 system. So,
no, I am not committing to that here today right now but
I will talk a bit more a little later this afternoon
about a number of services that we are committed to.
I will say to the member
opposite, that we are engaged with parents and with the
Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I will
say to the member opposite that not every one of those
people in those organizations are committed to ABA for
K-12. There are alternatives that work much better for
students from each end of the autistic spectrum.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, in February we wrote to the Eastern School
District regarding concerns that were expressed to us by
parents of students at Frank Roberts Junior High School
in Conception Bay South. The school had been closed last
year due to poor air quality control and mould and the
parents who contacted our office say that some of the
problems had not been adequately addressed when the
school reopened. The Eastern School District responded
to our letter saying that everything was fine. Well, Mr.
Speaker, it turns out that everything was not fine.
Yesterday it was announced the school would close again
due to poor air quality and mould.
I ask the minister: Why
were the concerns of parents not addressed in January
and February when these concerns were first brought to
government’s attention?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: In
the absence of someone from Eastern School District, Mr.
Speaker, I will try and provide an answer. I believe the
question is directed towards the Eastern School
District, in the meantime. We do not speak for the
district. I can only say that I am fully aware of the
incident at Frank Roberts. We have been briefed in the
very recent past. The incident that occurred with the
previous closure of the school was addressed. There was
total air quality testing done and as the member
opposite would know, he has been advocating regularly in
the House for air quality testing -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
There are important
questions being asked and important answers being
provided.
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
MR. KING: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, the
member opposite is well aware because he has advocated
on any number of occasions for air quality testing as
the way to determine whether schools are, in fact, safe
to be occupied or not.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that
test was done when the school was closed before, along
with a number of other testing procedures, and the tests
came back in fact to show that the school was safe to go
back into. The incident that has occurred very recently,
Mr. Speaker, is unrelated to the previous incident.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: I
have to agree with the minister, Mr. Speaker. The
incident that I am referring to now is definitely not
related to the first one, because this is in a totally
different area of that same school.
Mr. Speaker, while the
school was reopened in January, work continued on the
facility to address some of the ongoing air quality
problems. According to parents, this most recent case of
mould has been found in several new areas of the school,
nowhere near the original issue. As well, this mould is
apparently on the inner walls of the school.
I ask the minister: How
is it that this building could have been inspected,
undergone mould abatement, and students put back in this
facility, when clearly there were still mould issues in
that particular facility?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: I
think we should establish for the record that I am not
an engineer and I am not qualified to provide an answer
to the question posed, but I can certainly provide a
summary of the briefing that we have been provided.
I can say to the House,
Mr. Speaker, that I have asked the school board to
provide a full media briefing, and I understand that as
we speak here today that briefing is being provided. I
do not know the full contents of it, but I can say to
you that the recent incident was a result of contractor
error in some work that was being performed over the
Easter break. As a result of the damage by the
contractor, water infiltrated the building and mould
grew.
There were a number of
other issues, as I understand it, around communication
between the board and the parents and the public, that
the Opposition may want to take up with the school
district, but I have instructed the school district,
prior to coming to the House, to disclose fully any and
all information relative to that particular school and
what is happening in the last couple of weeks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, the issue that I reference today has nothing to
do with the work that was being done by the contractor.
It is in a totally different area of the school. He is
referencing a ceiling problem where the water came down.
That is not the issue; it is in a totally different area
of the school, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, several days
ago I asked questions regarding closure of a school in
Lamaline due to the discovery of mould. There is a long
list of schools that have been closed due to poor air
quality, over the past couple of years, and in the
middle of the school year again we have Frank Roberts
Junior High, for the second time in the school year. I
understand fully that the minister is not an engineer,
but I can tell you the Department of Education has some
control over the school boards.
I ask the minister:
Will you finally admit that mandatory air quality
inspections in all schools are required to identify
problems, or are we willing to go through the entire
process again this year, throwing more students and
parents into chaos because you refuse to be proactive?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It continues to be a challenge in the House to respond
to questions and statements that are not based entirely
on factual information, Mr. Speaker. It was only
yesterday that there was an insinuation – or two days
ago – by a member opposite that this government and my
office were somewhat negligent, for lack of a better
word, in the disposition of school property in Grand
Falls-Windsor.
I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, according to the letter in front of me here, it
was a Liberal Minister of Education who dealt with that
issue back in May 2000.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: To
the issue at hand, I say to the member opposite, I did
not cause the problem, no more than I did not decide
from 1997 to 2003 to put $5.5 million into school
maintenance and construction, but our government did
decide to put $121.5 million in this year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: And,
I say, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Member for
the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
They might have put $125
million in, but I can tell you the safety of our
children in the schools is not being protected in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, in October of last year the provincial
government announced a transfer of a shrimp licence from
St. Joseph’s to La Scie. The reasons given for the
transfer were to provide adjacency to the resource,
reduce trucking of product, and improve end quality. It
is our understanding that no production has taken place.
I am wondering if the minister would confirm this, if
this is the case, and if so why?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Very
simply, that was over two years that was to happen. We
are into the first year now. I think it is 2010. I am
looking at my hon. colleague here. Obviously, we are
giving the proponent the opportunity to carry out what
he promised to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, before a transfer takes place, I guess upgrades
and improvements have to happen with the plant in La
Scie.
I ask the minister: Are
you aware of any upgrades that the company has completed
in preparation for this transfer?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Again,
Mr. Speaker, we put it into the proponent’s hands to
carry out the work that is required in order to take
care of that particular transfer. I assume that he is in
the middle of it.
Again, with regard to
details, I guess I would have to check with the
proponent. Again, it is up to that individual to carry
out the work that is required.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, it has been reported that shrimp from the
Northern Peninsula, and in particular the communities of
Port au Choix, Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point, will be
shipped to St. Joseph’s.
I ask the minister:
Is that the case and what will this mean for the workers
in those communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, I do not deal with speculation, what if and
what happens. Obviously, it is up to the processing part
of the business to carry out their business. In this
particular case I have not had any reports, so I will
just leave that to speculation and leave it at that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The wait-list for MRI
services in the St. John’s area is roughly a year. In
fact, through discussions with the Newfoundland and
Labrador Association of Radiologists, they have clearly
stated that St. John’s is in need of a third MRI
immediately. We know that it takes about two years of
planning, infrastructure, and preparation and training
before a new unit can be functional.
I ask the minister: Is
government planning to install or allocate funds for a
new MRI machine for St. John’s in the near future?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, this year we are spending some $50 million on
equipment for our health facilities in this Province.
Last year it was $50 million. The year before that it
was $40-odd million. Mr. Speaker, in the last three
years we have spent close to $200 million in putting new
equipment in hospitals. We have had about seven new CT
scanners and we have had about a dozen mammography
units, for example, so we have had a significant
infusion of new money in providing new, advanced
technology in the area of diagnostic imaging.
As always, Mr. Speaker,
that money reflects our forward thinking. As always, we
are always looking at what the needs of the future will
be, whether it is MRI services or other diagnostic tools
that our health facilities need.
Mr. Speaker, in response
to the question, yes, we are always planning, we are
always looking at the future, we are always assessing
our future needs and, as always, as in the past three or
four years, we will respond to future needs as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In December 2005 the
Health Ministers across Canada agreed to benchmarks for
medical wait times in five areas, one of which was
diagnostic imaging. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and
Labrador have failed to report in this area since 2006.
I ask the minister: Why
have our Province not reported in this area with regard
to waitlists for diagnostic testing, and when can we
expect these numbers to be reported and released to the
public?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, five areas that have been agreed to that we
will benchmark. We have been reporting on those on a
quarterly basis and we will continue to do that. To make
jurisdictional comparisons around the country, all
provinces need to agree to measure their wait times and
to be able to report those. So all of those areas, which
in fact all provinces have agreed to measure and report
their benchmark times, and we, in fact, are doing that,
Mr. Speaker.
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.
I understand today that
finally the not-for-profit and private ambulance
operators are having a meeting with government, having
now been without a contract since April, 2008, and many
delays in setting this meeting up, and I am glad that
this meeting did not get cancelled.
However, Mr. Speaker,
last year the government started to roll out its
provincial medical oversight program, which requires
that all paramedics and ambulance operators throughout
the Province have the same training, but the budget did
not provide any specific new training for this program.
I ask the Minister of
Health and Community Services: Where will the money come
from for this training, since we know that the community
ambulance operators are running on a shoestring as it
is?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: I
am delighted the member opposite has mentioned our
medical oversight program. That is a significant
program, Mr. Speaker, all with a view of enhancing the
quality of care we provide to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, all with a view of ensuring that the first
responders to an emergency are appropriately and
adequately trained.
With respect to whole
issues of compensation, and she also acknowledged that
negotiations are taking place as we speak, this is the
second time that they have been at a table to negotiate
issues around compensation, remuneration and the flow of
money from government to these operators. I say, Mr.
Speaker, issues of financial cost, issues of
remuneration, issues of what the contract value would
be, that is what negotiations are all about.
I say, Mr. Speaker, as we
speak, there is a team of people at a table negotiating
what would be a reasonable compensation for the services
provided by all our community operators, together with
our private operators. At the outcome of the
negotiations, when they are concluded, we will all know,
as a Province, exactly what money was on the table.
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 did ask a very specific
question of the minister. I have heard from some
paramedics who are telling me that they are being asked
to take a leave of absence, pay for their own training,
and then come back to work for salaries that are at the
lowest end of the scale in the Province.
Is there going to be
specific money for those who are in the community-based
ambulances, the paramedics to get their training?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will see if I can be a
little more clearer for the member opposite. Community
operators, together with private operators, sit down
with government periodically to negotiate a contract. We
then provide financial remuneration to those people who
provide a service. They in turn hire employees. The
employees have an employer-employee relationship with
the people they work for. So I say, Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the amount of money we pay the operators,
that is what the negotiation is about today as we speak.
The relationship
individuals have with their employers, the
employee-employer relationship, we are not in the middle
of that, Mr. Speaker. So issues around how people work
for their employer, the nature of that relationship, who
pays for what training and about time off and their
scheduling, these are operational issues that the
operators themselves deal with. We as a government are
responsible for compensating the operators fairly for
the work that they do and the service they provide.
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 are
losing our rural paramedics to other provinces because
they are not receiving the same wages as the public
sector ambulance operators. However, they are dealing
with the same level of trauma, the same serious
illnesses, the same people who are vulnerable in
emergency situations, and they have to have the same
training.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: Why aren’t all of our EMS services coming
under a totally public system so that everyone gets paid
and trained the same and that the same quality of care
is provided to everyone in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, ambulance services in this Province is publicly
funded. As I have tried to explain to the member
opposite, we have a - and I have said many times in this
House, Mr. Speaker, is that some of our ambulance
services are based out of a hospital, some more of them
are operated by community-based organizations and some
more of them are operated by private operators, I say,
Mr. Speaker.
With the private
operators and the community operators, as we speak
today, and she has already acknowledged, they are at a
table negotiating an agreement, negotiating an
arrangement for financial compensation for a valuable
service that they provide. In the very near future, I
suspect they will conclude a negotiation. They will have
an arrangement that will be satisfactory to the
operators and they will continue to provide quality,
valuable service to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The time allotted for
questions and answers have expired. |
