PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to welcome back to Cabinet, to government, the hon. Beaton Tulk, Minister of Development and Rural Renewal and Government House Leader.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, on December 2, 1998, Minister Tulk resigned his Cabinet post because of allegations by Mr. John Woodrow. On the same day, the RCMP began an investigation and the Commissioner of Members' Interests also commence an investigation into this matter.
On March 18, 1999, the RCMP concluded their investigation stating that there was no criminal wrongdoing. Yesterday, Mr. Robert Jenkins, the Commissioner of Members' Interests completed his investigation and presented me with his report which also found these allegations to be groundless.
Mr. Speaker, I have since spoken with Mr. Jenkins directly who has assured me that he is confident there was no wrongdoing on the part of Minister Tulk or any member of his staff. The matter is concluded, and with consent, if I have consent, I will table the Commissioner's report before the House immediately upon completing this statement.
Let me say that I am extremely pleased that Minister Tulk is back in Cabinet. He and his family have been through an extremely difficult time because of these investigations, because of these unsubstantiated allegations. As I have said before, the process of a public investigation, while difficult, is sometimes a necessary burden for members of this House to bear. I want to reflect that Mr. Tulk has carried this burden with dignity and with grace over a five-month period of time.
In tabling the report, I would invite hon. members to of course review it, and I would invite hon. members to be in touch if they require further comment or clarification directly with the Commissioners of Members' Interests. He is after all an officer of this House and reports to the House. As such I am pleased to table this report today and to welcome an hon. colleague back to this Assembly and back to his full duties as a member of the government and a Minister of the Crown.
Mr. Speaker, I table the report today.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me join with the Premier in saying to the Member for Bonavista North, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, welcome back to the duties which he voluntarily himself left. We all remember that time in the Legislature. It was a difficult time. When any member of the Legislature is brought up under such scrutiny made by allegations, then it impacts, directly and indirectly, all of us to some degree.
I recall during that time, and shortly after, being asked publicly: Why didn't you go after Mr. Tulk in a more definitive way? My answer at that time, and it was the answer that we maintained as an Opposition, was that what we were after was a process that was transparent, that would look at these allegations in an arm's-length independent way to make the conclusions in an arm's-length independent way. I am pleased that was the position that not only myself and my caucus took but, but it was one that I think reflected generally the approach that should be taken in any matters that may arise like this in the future.
"Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and upon the basis [of] the evidence as presented to me, it is my considered opinion that in terms of the relevant conflict of interest provisions of Part II of the House of Assembly Act, neither Mr. Beaton Tulk, nor any member of his political staff nor any other person in a position of responsible political authority in relation to this file did or caused anything improper to be done in relation to the licencing of the Newfoundland & Labrador Paralegal Training Institute. I find any accusation made against Mr. Tulk or his staff members to be groundless and without any basis in fact or law."
While I may have disagreed with the process the Premier decided upon, I am satisfied, and my caucus is satisfied, certainly that this event is behind a member of the House. While I would have chosen another process, in terms of a judicial inquiry, I do find that with the report and the findings of the Commissioner of Members' Interests the process has been served.
I say to the member you have my personal well wishes in terms of you back in the Cabinet and carrying out your duties on behalf of the government. I look forward to the debate that will ensue again with you in your capacity as Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.
I would like to as well join with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition in welcoming a minister back from out in the cold, I guess, and in recognizing that we have in the Commissioner of Members' Interests, and in that process, an impartial officer of the House who is charged with the responsibility of administering the legislation. I think this is probably the first time that legislation has been tested in this way and that the Commissioner has being used to conduct such an investigation.
I do also offer my sympathy, I guess is the proper word, for the cloud which the Member for Bonavista North has had to endure through a number of months, and also through a provincial election, as I mentioned the last time this issue came up on March 18.
I, too, wish to acknowledge that the process has worked and has provided us, provided the public, with this kind of assurance that it needs that the member's position has not been in conflict and that the proper decorum and actions of public officials has been followed.
I welcome him back to his position in the Cabinet, and we will be partisan from here on in. I think it is worth noting that from the time the investigation started it is not been raised as a partisan issue, either during the election or since the thing came forward. I think that it is important to note. We have all respected the process and we respect the conclusions that both the RCMP and the Commissioner of Members' Interests have reached.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, let me first of all do as I did I think when the RCMP report was brought in. If I could have leave.
Let me just say that, first of all, I want to thank the people of Bonavista North who, through an election, as I said at that time, took the word of one Beaton Tulk over the allegations that were on the public airwaves of this Province that indicated that indeed there had been some wrongdoing on behalf of their member. I want to thank them for their support in that election.
I also want to recognize that in this partisan atmosphere that we live in it would have been very easy, I guess, for the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP to raise this issue to heights that they chose not to, because I believe they recognized that what we were doing was the right and proper thing for all of us, and that I had taken maybe the right course of action. I do want to thank them for their nonpartisan attitude to this and I want to thank them for their welcome back. I realize that will end probably in about two or three minutes when we become partisan foes in this Legislature again.
I want to thank the caucus of the Liberal Party and especially the Premier of this Province, for having the faith in me that I had not committed any of the allegations that were made against me and keeping the Cabinet position open for me. I think it is fairly safe to say, that is maybe a first in this Province as well.
MR. TULK: - for the support over the past five months. I look forward to getting on with this, getting past it, and getting into the next five minutes.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is a very clever headline in The Telegram today saying, "There's no beatin' Tulk". You can see he stands here, six-foot-something, and is back and ready to participate.
I want to rise as well today - and this is the first opportunity I have had a chance to do so - to pay tribute, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the late Wallace Pike, who passed away on April 18, at the age of 99. Mr. Pike was the last of Newfoundland and Labrador's World War I veterans living in this Province.
Wallace Pike spent much of his time overseas as a stretcher-bearer, risking his own life during the war to help the wounded. He represented what would later become a Canadian tradition in times of conflict - that of humanitarian aide and lifesaver. Mr. Pike fought to allow each of us to be free, to stand in this House today and to openly discuss the issues of the day, and for that, to him and to his entire generation, those who served in the First World War and indeed those who served in the Second World War, the Korean conflict, and those who serve today as peacekeepers, we must be thankful.
Mr. Speaker, the passing of Wallace Pike signals the end of an era in Newfoundland and Labrador's history. Our first-hand knowledge of World War I has been greatly diminished.
Mr. Pike leaves a large family to remember his life: nine children, thirty grandchildren, fifty great-grandchildren, and six great-great grandchildren. Mr. Pike was predeceased by his wife, Minnie, and one child.
We would like to extend our sympathy, and indeed our appreciation, our celebration of this man's life and that of his generation, to Mr. Pike's family in this time of mourning.
Obviously, as Leader of the Opposition and on behalf of our party and the caucus in the Opposition, we want to be associated with the remarks of the Premier on behalf of government.
Obviously, Mr. Pike's life reflects a time in our history and it speaks of the role that people in this Province played in overseas conflict and what became known as the Great War. It also, I guess, makes us reflect upon what we, in terms of our provincial character and at that time our national character, the commitment that we made both physically and with the loss of many sons and daughters during that time.
Mr. Pike's life is a testament, I think, to the grit of the Newfoundland psyche, the Newfoundland character, and the grit and determination that he brought to his post-war activities in life through his involvement with The Salvation Army.
We, on this side of the House, wish to be associated with those remarks in passing on our condolences to his remaining family in the spirit of honouring today, in this House, a great Newfoundlander.
I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our sympathy to the members of Mr. Pike's family and also, through him, to recognize the contribution of all Newfoundlanders who fought the number of wars in this century.
It is worth noting that Mr. Pike was probably born in 1900 and, as we approach the end of the century, it is important to recognize that throughout this century this Province has had many people who have fought, and many who lost their lives, preserving the ideals which we believe in to create the kind of society that we want to have.
Mr. Pike was amongst those recognized by the Government of France with the Legion of Honour very recently. I am sure we were all very proud of him and all of our veterans, especially going back to the First World War, on that occasion, and I think it is fitting that we recognize it here today.
Today is a National Day of Mourning in Canada. It is a day set aside to remember those workers who have paid the ultimate price on the job. Today, April 28, Canadians everywhere are paying tribute to workers who have been injured, became ill, or who have died as a result of industrial disease or workplace related accidents.
An Annual Wreath Laying Ceremony was held at 12:00 noon today in memory of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have lost their lives on the job. In keeping with this occasion, flags on Confederation Hill are being flown at half mast today.
Mr. Speaker, injuries, illnesses and fatalities in the workplace are a disturbing reality for people across Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have all heard it said that accidents will happen; however, I have always maintained a belief that accidents can be prevented. Today, it is important for each and every one of us to reflect on that thought and consider what we can do to ensure our workplaces are safe.
Mr. Speaker, government, employers and employees must work together to reduce the number of workplace accidents but, more than that, we must work together to create an accident and illness free workplace everywhere in this Province. This may sound like an impossible goal, but I believe it is achievable if there is a concerted and enthusiastic effort by all parties.
Mr. Speaker, today I ask all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take time to remember those who have lost their lives, those who have been injured or became ill, in workplace related accidents. Take time today to reflect on the importance on safety in the workplace, and make it an integral part of your everyday activities.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
I join with the minister in his comments today. Illness and fatalities in the workplace are disturbing - not to diminish the seriousness of some of the larger tragedies that we see. If there was a bus accident where there were twenty people injured, it would be national news. Yet there are more than that, on a daily basis across the country, injured in the workplace and we never hear of it.
My grandmother always said: An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure - and I agree. I agree with the minister in his comments that we have to be more vigilant in ensuring workplace safety in this Province. We are now embarking on a new industry, an oil industry, and it is really not that new. We saw tragedies such as the Ocean Ranger many years ago. We are embarking on a new industry in this Province.
MR. T. OSBORNE: We are embarking on a new industry in this Province, the oil industry. We are getting into mining, such as Voisey's Bay, in a major way. It is important that this Province help educate people in the workplace to ensure that injuries and fatalities in the workplace are limited.
I would like to rise and make a few comments on the very important day for workers in this country. I would like to just talk a bit about how this came about, and the personal tragedies that we have had in this Province over the years.
I can recall, in February of 1977, in the mining industry in Labrador West, we had three fatalities in nine days. Following those three fatalities, with nobody knowing who was going to be next, the Steelworkers Union went on a two-week wildcat strike that saw thirteen people sent to jail and others fired.
MR. COLLINS: I would like to say that also in this Province, the longest strike in Canadian history over the single issue of health and safety was staged by the Steelworkers Union in Baie Verte in 1978.
I think it is important to remember as well that nobody gave workers the right to safe workplaces. Workers paid the ultimate price for that. They died for it and they fought for it by going on strike and taking other actions that were necessary to get the recognition that occupational health and safety deserved.
We also saw a four-month strike in 1978 in Labrador City, where health and safety was one of the key issues. As a matter of fact, I am proud to say as a steelworker that the right to refuse, and the occupation health and safety legislation in this Province, was taken almost word for word out of the collective agreement that followed that strike at the Iron Ore Company.
While I was president of the Steelworkers Union in Labrador City, I was faced with having to go to three different families and tell them that their loved ones would not be coming home. We had three fatalities there during the time that I was president of the local union.
Today it is about more than people being killed, because there is something else happening in the workplace that is of equal importance and it is not always obvious - the number of people who die each year from industrial disease. A lot of times that takes a while to happen because there is a latency period associated with the chemicals that we are exposed to, the dust that we are exposed to, and many times it is fifteen or twenty years later, when a person has finished his work life, that they actually get sick and eventually die from these diseases. I think that is where a lot of our energies have to be focused in the future as well. Workers have to have a greater say on the workplace floor on issues relating to occupational health and safety.
I agree with the minister; we can achieve a workplace that will be free from accidents and disease, and I believe that this government has a leading role to play in making that happen.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, government decided last year to assist the financially troubled S.C.B. Fisheries in Bay d'Espoir. S.C.B. has been involved in finfish aquaculture since the mid-eighties, and the focus prior to government's latest involvement was on research and development. However, all participants recognized the need to focus all future efforts on commercialization of the industry in Bay d'Espoir.
Recognizing that there was a fear that the operation would have probably gone out of business, and a possible loss of 200 jobs in the area, government decided to make available a $6.4 million working capital loan guarantee in 1998 to help S.C.B. Fisheries deal with some of the problems they were facing in this new and challenging industry.
Government invested this money because Bay d'Espoir is a leader in the aquaculture industry in our Province, and we have confidence in the growth of this new sector. There are many challenges, Mr. Speaker, in the ongoing development of the aquaculture industry, but we believe it has considerable potential and can offer economic diversification opportunities.
One of the problems at S.C.B. resulted from the types of strains of fish they were allowed to use that were not commercially competitive to the strains of fish being used in other parts of the world. The inferior strains of fish that they were using, as a result of DFO regulations, was one of the major reasons for the poor financial performance of the aquaculture industry.
Meanwhile, hon. members, if you can recall, we have been lobbying very hard and pressuring the federal government to allow us to bring in a better strain of fish. We are happy to report, and inform the hon. members, that we have now been given permission to import all female diploid steelhead trout, which are more commercially viable. This recent decision by the federal government will now place S.C.B. Fisheries in a more competitive position. Our efforts paid off, and this is good news for S.C.B. Fisheries and other aquaculture operations in Bay d'Espoir.
Plan worked out with Shur-Gain - feed supplier to S.C.B. - whereby it has received satisfactory conclusion to its $3.4 million outstanding feed credit to S.C.B.; completion of an independent detailed operational review of the company; site operating costs reduced to address the seasonality of the business; plant processing facility organized and upgraded which resulted in increased productivity, improved quality, and lower production costs; refocused the hatchery operation to deal with quality and not quantity, and as a result we have larger, healthier fish going into grow-out cages which will equate to less mortalities and improve the costs of the marine sites.
By lobbying D.F.O., we received approval to import diploid all female steelhead eggs. By using these improved strains we will see improved feed conversion ratios, which equates to lower costs to grow the fish.
In summary, the aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir will be placed in a competitive position with other producers. In short, they now have a brighter future.
The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for government not to have any further financial involvement in the S.C.B. operation, and this has been done effective March 15, 1999. We have ended all of our financial and managerial involvement in the operation; however, release of the Province's security will be subject to S.C.B. Fisheries Limited first having in place a new general manager, a new investor, and submission of a viable business plan for the continued operations that is acceptable to government.
We believe, as a result of our investment, we have put the company in a more favourable, stable position to move ahead and to continue to play a major role in the future development of the aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir and in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I reiterate that government is committed to the aquaculture industry and will continue to provide research and development funding to support this sector. We will continue to work with the industry in this area with the objective of building a self-sustaining aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say to the minister, $20 million is an awful lot of money. When the minister talks about the S.C.B. Fisheries being able to deal with some of the problems, he is not even saying that $20 million solved the problems as they presently exist. We are talking about taxpayers' dollars.
Back in December, I think, of 1998, the minister stood in his place and talked about bringing forward $6.4 million. At that particular time his voice was loud and clear; he was going to have his ADM down there and he was going to resolve the management problems. I would like to ask the minister if there are any new managers being put in place in this particular facility.
The people I have talked to - S.C.B Fisheries is less attractive now than it was back in December. My understanding was that at that particular time it was going through a stage, that there were two or three months when the fish would not have to be fed. From what I understand, the present owners, since that time, have gone forward and culled the fish that was there. The minister should know the meaning of that word very well.
MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that the present owners have gone forward and culled the fish there and sold it and, because of that, the investor that was interested in taking over S.C.B Fisheries is not nearly as interested now as it was then.
I say to the minister that we are paying over $100,000 a job. As important as the 200 jobs are at S.C.B Fisheries down in Bay d'Espoir, somewhere down the road we have to look at the amount of taxpayers' dollars that have gone into this operation. It is about time we put managers in place and people in place to run this as a business and not to be continually coming back and getting handouts from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
In reading through this statement, it is pretty obvious the minister is claiming credit for certain improvements at S.C.B Fisheries. I agree that improvements have been made in the management and operations in the last number of months, but if you look at his statement here you would conclude that the $6.4 million loan guarantee has somehow been paid off or taken over by somebody else. I do not know if the minister can clarify that, but that doesn't seem to me to be what really happened here. When he says we have ended our financial and managerial involvement, and yet we have a $6.4 million loan guarantee still in place, that sounds like a pretty substantial liability of public money, to me.
We know that there are still considerable problems there in the biology, in the escape of fish there, that is potentially causing serious problems to other species and also to the salmon in the area. We also know there are other problems, but in the whole area of fisheries aquaculture, this minister, this department, has really failed to do something about the loss of our cod hatchery and our cod technology that is now being developed in Nova Scotia.
MR. HARRIS: - in Nova Scotia and in Maine, with the talent and the information that was developed here. We (inaudible) here.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, today being Private Members' Day, and the clock being at 2:30 p.m., I would ask, with leave of the House, to allow the Order Paper - Notices of Motion and that - to continue after Question Period, prior to moving at 3:00 p.m. into the private member's resolution.
MR. SULLIVAN: We need to read a Notice of Motion into the record. I will give the Government House Leader a copy of that.
MR. TULK: We do not need to go through the whole orders of procedure.
MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands then that at 3:00 p.m. we will call Notices of Motion and then move into Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, at 3:00 p.m.
My question today is for the Premier. The last day the House was open is marked on our calendars as the day government legislated a collective agreement on the very nurses with whom this government and this Premier promised to sit down face to face and negotiate with. In the four weeks since then the crisis in the health care system has not gone away, evidenced by the statements of the executive director or head of the St. John's Health Care Corporation, and in light of the comments made by the executive director of the Western Health Care Corporation today.
Casual nurses are still leaving. The issues of casualization have not been addressed adequately. Workload issues are still, today, the same as they were four weeks ago, as they were six months ago, and that the legislative imposition of an agreement, the heavy hand of this Legislature, has not solved those problems.
Premier, when will you make good on the commitments that you have made on behalf of the people of the Province and start doing something to address the crisis in the health care system and the crises that are facing health care workers generally, and specifically health care workers with respect to nurses in this Province?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We have as of yesterday put out a request for the three parties involved - the employers of the employees of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union members and their executive and ourselves - to come together and try to find a solution to the outstanding issues surrounding, particularly, nursing retention, recruitment and other work-life issues. Mr. Speaker, we have not formally heard back from the nurses' union, but I know we will be having discussions this evening with the employers around this very same issue.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what a pathetic response by a Minister of Health to put out an invitation to sit down and deal with the issues.
Will the minister acknowledge the issue itself, and that the issues surrounding recruitment and retention are clear, and what is required is not an invitation to sit down and talk about it but what is required is immediate action that addresses the fundamental problems surrounding caseloads, surrounding recruitment and retention and surrounding workload? Won't the minister admit that what is required is not an invitation to the nurses of this Province but that what is required is action that addresses the fundamental concerns faced by nurses and the health care system in this Province?
The first part of the action is to offer an invitation for all of the parties to come together. There is absolutely no intention on our part not to move forward in a way that is required. However, we first offered the invitation for all of the parties to come together and sit down to try to resolve those issues.
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister certainly did not follow that approach when she stood in her place as the Minister of Health and in a public relations exercise try to court public opinion by announcing more nurses into the system that grossly did not serve to deal with the fundamental issues that were debated at much length in this House.
Let me ask the minister this. Nurses in the Western Health Care Corporation yesterday talked about taking job action. It is obvious to all of us what that means. It is fair to say that the Western Health Care Corporation is a glaring example of health care mismanagement at a time at the Western Health Care Corporation. The minister allowed the Corporation to go years without filing the proper accounts. It went a year without a CEO. The Atkinson group sent in to clean up the mess was delayed for months because they could not get their hands on the most basic information about the expenditure of tens of millions of public dollars.
Government has had this report in their hands since the fall of 1998. When does the government plan on releasing the Atkinson report so the public can see the extent of damage? Or are you too ashamed, Minister, of what the report reveals to let us all see it and let the light of day and the light of transparency shine on exactly what is taking place within our health care institutions in this Province?
We have moved forward with a number of initiatives, particularly in the western area, over the last six to eight months. We know that, in addition to the Atkinson report we have also done our own financial review of all the boards across the Province, and we incorporated the results of the financial review for Western with the Atkinson report. Many of those initiatives have already been acted upon: for example, the senior management, the financial reporting system.
While I know the members opposite would like to eliminate the boards and start again, we believe the boards have done a good job. We believe that what is needed to be done is certainly a strengthening of the accountability framework. This government has been working for a very long time, in fact over the last nine months, putting in place an accountability framework which we will be discussing and consulting with the boards over the coming months to deal with these issues.
Mr. Speaker, in fairness and in reality, a number of the issues that have been identified by our own review as well as the Atkinson review have been incorporated by the new executive team and by the overall region. We will continue to move forward from there.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, nobody, only Cabinet, would know what is contained in the Atkinson report because they have only seen it themselves. They will not make it public.
The minister stands in the House to leave the impression that many of the recommendations contained in the Atkinson report have been implemented. Madam Minister, the only way for the public to get a true understanding of if your statement is correct and the trust in the approach that you have used, which is not working publicly any more, is for you to release the report.
I will ask the question again. When will you on behalf of government, or when will the Premier, one of you, stand up and table the Atkinson report for all of us to see? That document does not belong to you. It belongs to the public of this Province and they have a right to know what is contained within the covers.
As I just mentioned, we did a financial review of the whole Province, not just in the western region. One of the components of the Atkinson report, with our own financial review that we used in preparation for the Budget, was that we had to assimilate both of the reports and look at what was brought forward. Because as you know, there has been total financial line-by-line review done for the first time in many of our boards, and it was based on that information that we moved forward with our Budget announcement.
As to the release of that report, that would be brought before Cabinet. It would be looked at now in the context of what was done and what still needs to be done. That decision has not been made.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to leave this issue. I will ask the minister again. Cabinet must have dealt with this issue. You have had the report that was given to you in October 1998. It was presented to the government.
Surely you are not telling the people of this Province that you have had such a detailed report in your hands as Minister and you have not brought what was contained in that report before Cabinet? Is that what the minister is saying? If she is not, then she should stand in her place and tell us when she is going to release that report for all of us to see what the recommendations are.
What I have said is that we have factored in the information we obtained from the Atkinson report. We put that in line with our own financial review which we did of all of our boards right across the Province, and we used that information.
We in no way have prevented the western region - in fact, many of the recommendations that we are acting upon are very obvious and have been dealt with very clearly with the Western Health Care Board, particulary around the financial accountability, around the new management, and around identifying the services that will be offered, particularly as it relates to the construction of new facilities in that region, Mr. Speaker.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is shameful. The first time a financial review was conducted on the Western Health Care Corporation it was done by the Auditor General. The first time that any agency, whether the Department of Health or an agency of this House, it was the Public Accounts Committee, of which at the time I was Chair. It held a review on the Western Health Care Board, and at that time officials from the Department of Health indicated that it was the political decision not to conduct financial reviews on the health care boards of the day to give them time to get their management in place.
Minister, I ask you again: Why will you not release the Atkinson report so we all can see what the recommendations contain? Is it so damning on the management of your government with respect to health care? Is that why you will not release the report so all the recommendations can be seen?
We have not impeded any of the boards from moving forward in doing what needed to be done as a result of financial review, either from our own financial review or from that, in the western region specifically, on the Atkinson report.
What we have said in our own deliberations, with the Budget particularly, is that we have moved forward with the new management structure that is out there, with the financial accountability, with the introduction of a new computerized system to monitor the financial component of that particular board. So, Mr. Speaker, we are not prohibiting the board from moving forward in any way on this particular issue.
MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, when will you stop playing games and start doing your duty? How many more nurses will we lose? How many more patients will have their medical treatments cancelled? How many more beds will close and hospital facilities remain under-utilized because you and your Cabinet refuse to give health care the number one priority it deserves? How dare you ask nurses, Minister, to cooperate in finding a solution when all the tools are in your hand to find the solutions. When will you act, and act now, to address the issues that the public has debated, and that we have debated so thoroughly in this House?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have never at any point said that we would never act on what needed to be acted upon with respect to health care. What I have done - and I have made it very clear over the last couple of days - is I have offered an invitation to the nurses' union and to the employers to work with us on this issue, because the employers run the health care system and the nurses, particularly, are a very important component of that system.
So I am not saying that we will not act, but I will say that we have offered the invitation, that there are a number of outstanding issues. There are a number of outstanding issues that were left at the table. While this is not meant in any way to be a round of negotiations, it is meant to provide an opportunity to move forward in addressing some of the outstanding issues, particularly as they relate to retention and recruitment.
Minister, when will you do what is correct? When will you come to an understanding that realizes that what is in the best interest of nurses in this Province is also in the best interest of health care in this Province?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I am misreading what the Leader opposite is saying. Are you saying that we should not talk?
I am wondering if I am in any way hearing that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we should not consult and should not meet if those parties are interested in doing so. I never mentioned the word debate. I mentioned the word meeting with them, consulting with them and moving forward. I never said at any point we would not act. What I have said is that we have gone forward and invited two of the three players involved to come and sit with us and deal with some of the outstanding issues. Now, I never said debate and I never said negotiate. I have invited them. I have not said that we would not act. However, the invitation is there. There are outstanding issues and we will be moving forward to try to address those.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. We have heard comments recently from the President of Treasury Board, we heard them from the Minister herself, we heard them from the Premier, all calling for cooperation from nurses. Nurses, Minister, cooperated prior to the strike, during the strike, and after the strike.
Everybody is aware that the permanent solution to this is to hire more permanent nurses. You do not need a health care forum to tell you. You had one two years ago and you did not fix the problem. That was one of the first tasks you had, to put out the fires during a federal election, when health care was the main issue.
Other provinces are smart enough to realize that we are in dire need of more nurses. Mike Harris is hiring over 10,000. Roy Romanow had the integrity and the courage to admit they had failed. The window of opportunity, Minister, is quickly closing. What we want now is action on the issue, not more talk. Won't you admit that if you do not start doing something now, that window of opportunity will quickly close and there will be no nurses available to do the job then?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I may have an opportunity to answer.
We have offered the invitation for all of the parties to come to the table to begin to deal with this issue. The member opposite talked about Ontario hiring 10,000 nurses. I ask the member opposite: How many thousands of nurses did they take out of the system? How many thousands of nurses did Alberta take out of the system? Whether people want to accept it or not, these are not my statistics.
The Canadian Institute of Health Information has stated - it is a national body - Newfoundland has the third best ratio of registered nurses to the general public.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, these are not my numbers, these are not cooked numbers from government, these are national statistics. We do recognize and we do admit that there is a national shortage of nurses as well as a national shortage of other health professionals that we also need to try to deal with, but we are willing to try to address outstanding issues around retention and recruitment. We have offered an invitation. We hope we will hear positively in a formal way. If we don't, we will move forward to do the best we can. We take our responsibility seriously and will do what we have to do.
In the past decade we have seen 1,000 beds close in this Province and nurses laid off. Nurses have been laid off and they have left this Province. They have been without a job as you continuously close hospital beds, and it is occurring at a more rapid pace than ever. Minister, under your Administration it is happening; it is worse.
Nurses, just today, in the Coronary Care Unit at the Health Sciences Centre, were informed they cannot take annual leave - nurses overworked, underpaid, dealing with the stresses of a job, who were awaiting a badly needed vacation with their family. Minister, there is a crisis going on, in case you do not know.
MR. SULLIVAN: Now tell us: What are you going to do about it?
Every single jurisdiction across this country have closed hospital beds because they are providing more ambulatory care. Contrary to what the member opposite believes, we have changed the practices over the last decade. We have changed from higher in-patient services to higher out-patient services. We have moved - as one example - going from seven days as an in-patient for a hernia repair to doing it on an out-patient basis. That is just one example, not to mention changing the number of days required for obstetrics and other post-op care.
Mr. Speaker, we are not decreasing beds in this Province as a result of some new strategy. It is a strategy that has been implemented right across the country because of new techniques and surgeries. That is how the system is working.
We recognize there is a national shortage, and we also recognize that we have to do something about it. That is why we are going to move forward. As to what we will do, our first preference is to deal with the other two parties - or at least deal with one of the two, hopefully with the nurses' union as well as our employers - and move forward. Once we come to those decisions, we will announce them.
An announcement will come when it is too late; it is going to happen.
MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, health care is falling down around our ears in this Province. I want to ask you: Do you consider what is happening here appropriate care for our sick? If you do, what are you going to do about it?
We have not at any point said that we do not recognize that there is a national nursing shortage. Being part of a nation, we recognize that is inherent as well in our Province. We are very willing to try to deal with those issues as best we can.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I may have an opportunity to answer, Mr. Speaker.
In addition to the shortages that we are experiencing with nurses we are also experiencing, particularly as it relates to cardiovascular surgery, shortages in the cardiac profusionists.
Mr. Speaker, we do realize that we have a lot of areas that we need to work with. We have had and continue to have shortages with our medical practitioners and our specialists, and we are continuing to try to deal with those. We also have shortages with OTs and PTs and speech therapists. We know that, and we continue to try to deal with those.
That is why, in the longer term, we are putting forward our health human resources planning committee to try to deal with it in the long term. In the meantime, we are trying to deal with the other issues on a more urgent short-term basis.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education.
Since the mid-eighties, this Province's education system has seen a serious decline first of all in students, which in turn has seen a serious decline in the number of schools and in the number of teachers. Each spring, every spring, it appears to be the same story: teacher cutbacks, which stand for program cutbacks.
Enough is enough. School administrators have had, for too many years, to adjust to long-term cutbacks in programs - restructure programs. They have been in a juggling act just about every spring. This spring has been no different.
I ask the minister: How can this government continue to expect high quality education for our young people when you still are going to slash up to 182 teaching positions this year?
MS FOOTE: Maybe the leader would like for me to answer the question?
MS FOOTE: Do you want an answer?
As the member acknowledged, we have had a severe decline in our student enrolment. Obviously, if you have at one point 170,000 students in the system and that goes down to today where we have 97,000, that will impact on the number of teachers that are needed in the system. If not, there is something wrong with our system if we keep teachers when there is no need to have them in the system.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that maybe we need to have a look at the formula. In fact, for the past two years we have not applied the formula. So while the hon. member opposite talks about slashing 182 teachers from the system, if we had applied the formula that exists - and formulas exist in every province in this country - if we had applied the formula over 400 teachers would have been removed. We chose not to do that, so if you look at the student population and you apply their formula we would have had 400 fewer teachers in the system. We chose not to do that. We chose to reinvest $11.5 million back into the system when we did not have to do that, but as a responsible government, Mr. Speaker, that is what we chose to do.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's contention this government has placed this education system in crisis. It is serious. I keep repeating that this system is in crisis. Regardless of reducing or adding, we want to look at what is happening to the programming.
MR. HEDDERSON: - level of programming, and this is what is in serious peril. Again, I ask the minister: Is she going to address the crisis? The allocation formula is outdated. She realizes it, we realize it. Is it going to be addressed, or is it going to be just put off until next year and again have our children suffer through program cuts?
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the hon. member opposite can refer to a crisis in the education system when the high school graduation rates have increased 30 per cent over the last ten years and now stand at 82 per cent in this Province.
MS FOOTE: One of the highest, Mr. Speaker, in the country, by the way. There is no crisis in the education system. What we have out there today maybe is a crisis in terms of the declining student enrolment, something we certainly would like to see changed. As a government we certainly would like to be able to put more teachers back into the system, and would if our numbers warrant it.
We are concerned. We want to ensure that we have a top-notch quality education program in this system and throughout this Province. We are working at that. We are working with all of the school boards throughout the system.
We have undertaken to meet with each of the education directors throughout the system, each of the boards - there are ten of them - to try and determine in fact, if there are some concerns out there, what the genesis of those concerns are. If we have boards out there saying: Because of the cutback in the number of teachers we are going to have to cut back on the programs that are being offered, that is a concern for us as a government. Because we want to ensure we have the best quality program.
MS FOOTE: We are going out meeting with each of the education directors at each of the school boards to find out what their concerns are, and if they have concerns we want them to show us how they are originating, where they are coming from and how we can best deal with them.
It is one thing for boards and others to stand and tell us there is a problem; it is another for us to have a chance to consult with them and find out the genesis of that problem, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We are going to meet with them and find out what the cause of the problem is.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I am having difficulty getting across to the minister that yes, there is a crisis out there. I think you should go out and talk to more than just the boards. Let me just read from two students from Lester Pearson Memorial High School.
We are pretty lenient on this side, but I have to say to the hon. gentleman that it is 3:00 p.m., that it took him two minutes to ask a supplementary. It is 3:01 p.m. and I think we are one minute past the deadline for Private Members' Day.
We are now going to go to Notices of Motion, I think, by agreement.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the government to take the steps of improving nursing remuneration, nursing working conditions and staffing levels, to ensure the proper functioning of the health care system.
Mr. Speaker, I also ask leave, in light of this resolution, to withdraw Motion 4 in today's Order Paper, since I had a previous private member's resolution on the Order Paper.
MR. TULK: We have no objection to the hon. gentleman withdrawing the resolution and putting the new motion that he has on the Order Paper because the first one is outdated. To keep the records of the House straight, I wonder if he would put it in the form of a motion, to ask for leave to rescind the resolution and read the previous resolution on the Order Paper so that it is straight in the record? So that we can pass it and get it on the (inaudible).
Before I sat down I asked for leave to withdraw Motion 4, which was that resolution.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Motion 4 on today's Order Paper.
AN HON. MEMBER: If it is on the Order Paper you do not have to read it in, do you? It is there.
MR. SULLIVAN: It is a long one but I can read it.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon the government to submit the dispute to binding arbitration as provided for in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act."
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know about the third party in the House but we certainly have no objection. I would second the motion that the hon. gentleman withdraw resolution four as he just read it in the Order Paper.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honour, the third party in the House has no objection either.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that Motion 4 be now rescinded.
All those in favour, `aye'.
For the Table I have some copies of that resolution.
The hon. member is now introducing a resolution. Which resolution are we speaking on now?
MR. SULLIVAN: Are we still on Notices of Motion now, I want to ask, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: We called Notices of Motion but the hon. member gave notice. As he is aware, a Notice of Motion must be twenty-four hours.
MR. SPEAKER: So the hon. member has leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the Chair did not understand that.
The Chair understands that the House is giving leave to the hon. member to debate this private member's resolution that he just introduced.
It is certainly my pleasure to have an opportunity today to debate a resolution of major significance, I might add, here in our Province. It is a very serious issue.
This very type of action we are talking about here can prevent what we have seen happen to the Province's doctors, because a stitch in time saves nine. If you move quickly to correct a problem, you will not be faced with a bigger one down the road.
We have seen a similar thing happen with doctors, the discrepancy was so great. The Memorandum of Understanding with doctors, with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, did not even, with 22 per cent or 23 per cent in many areas, solve the doctor shortage, and we are still getting an exodus of doctors out of this Province. We let it go too long, the situation was too severe, and we are going to find the same situation with nurses.
We only need to be normal individuals. Just think about it: Nova Scotia pays 29 per cent more; Prince Edward Island's contract, which expired March 1, pays 17 per cent more. They are down here recruiting in this very Province. They are down recruiting from our north, a new territory in the north, paying people in the vicinity of $55,000 to $60,000 range, giving assistance. They are providing assistance and accommodations, and providing a northern allowance on top of that salary, I might add.
I spoke just two days ago with a group of nurses who were here in St. John's. They were at a social gathering, with a nurse who was leaving the next morning to catch a flight down to the United States, and I spoke with some of them. They said: We are getting together because our friend is leaving tomorrow morning.
We saw incidents on the news. They are telling examples of the problem we have, and we have to fix it. We are going to have a problem.
One hundred and twenty-five new nurses in the system - the minister stood here and announced in the House, right in the midst of a strike - is not the solution to solving the nursing crisis here in this Province. The solution is hiring more permanent nurses.
The nurses have worked so much - they have been called in on overtime - it is causing an increase in sick leave in our system because they are stressed out and they are overworked. It is causing problems. The casualization - they do not know from day to day, from minute to minute, if they are going to get a call. You cannot run a major health care system, acute care institutions in this Province, on casualization. We allowed it to get out of hand.
I raised this issue about four years ago in this House. I raised it four years ago on casualization, and talked about what the problem is going to lead to. It is on the record of Hansard somewhere around four years ago; it could be five, who knows? We addressed what could be - an impending crisis is coming here in the system.
We have a major concern, a major problem. If we do not address it - the government, during the election campaign, seemed to be aware of it. They were aware of it in the election campaign, very much so. I have some of the quotes here from the Premier in their election campaign. He talked about all this new money we are going to get, a big chunk of money from the federal government, this big $40 million. You know what that turned out to be? - $4.4 million. That was the difference.
In Canada Health and Social Transfers, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, based on the document that the Minister of Finance, his colleague, tabled in this House, there is $4.4 million extra under the Canada Health and Social Transfers. That is what we got. We did not get $40 million extra; we got $4.4 million extra. Either we got sold a bill of goods, whatever it is, that is what we got under the Canada Health and Social Transfers.
That is what your document - you are a member of Cabinet - a document which you provided to this House, and I assume this is accurate. If it is not, you will have to stand and defend it in the estimates, in discussion on the Budget here in this House. I am going from your figures of $4.4 million, one-tenth of what we were told we were going to get.
He said he now understands and realizes. He now has the money to improve the Province's health care system. That is what he said. He has the money to improve it. He told us everywhere he has gone - I think he even thanked nurses in the campaign, for raising the issues out there in the public and doing such a good job. That is right. He said: The Minister of Health is a nurse, the deputy minister is a nurse, every night he goes home to a nurse.
He tells the nurses they can trust him to handle their concerns over cutbacks to health care. That was the story back on February 8. I do not know why February 9 changed it. Since that, we are hearing it all over. The western part of this Province now are indicating that they are going to (inaudible). They cannot take it any more. The people here in this Province cannot take it any more.
I spoke to people the weekend before last - anybody who has friends sick there - up at the Grace Hospital. There were five people in the Intensive Care Unit - there are six beds, and five coronary care beds - there are eleven beds in total, and they did not have enough nurses to care for those who were there. One needed two nurses. He was so sick, he had need of two nurses. They tried to get a nurse to come in. Eventually they got one to come in at twelve o'clock. Another patient came in - to make it six - at 10:00 p.m. There was another nurse came in, and they had two deal with one. On top of what they were doing, they did not have the right ratio of care that is required for the health of the individual. They were monitoring two by telemetry, monitoring two that were hooked up to monitors down on the floor of the hospital. They got a call from the Health Science: We have three coronary care patients we want to put in there. Five empty beds, we cannot take them.
There was a fresh angioplasty, someone had just had an angioplasty done. We have nobody to go in there - five empty beds. We cannot shut down the Coronary Care Unit. A Coronary Care Unit in the capital city of the Province had to shut it down because we cannot get nurses. The minister knows full well that when you train critical care nurses in casualization, when they took permanent jobs in other areas, they jumped at this chance.
The same corporation now, and the same Minister of Health overseeing her appointed boards, because that is what they are... She talked about appointed boards. We said: Scrap the boards. Look at your own memos inside that said you were going to do the same thing. In this election campaign and prior, you were going to do the same thing. You were going to make the CEO's report to the Department of Health. Do not deny it. I would like to hear the minister respond to that one - the very same thing. When someone does that, to me, it sounds like a hypocrite. That is what it sounds like.
MR. SULLIVAN: It sounds like it; I did not say it is.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, it does. I withdraw it, if it makes the Government House Leader happy. I withdraw it.
When you say something that the Opposition are going to do that you were going to do the same thing, and you go out in the public and say it. We know, I know, and you know very well, you are going to do the same thing. It is ridiculous. It is the games you are playing. That is what it is; it is a game. It is a spin game they are playing out in the public. That is all it is. It is not a genuine concern to address the issue. There is one solution. You either stand up and admit you have failed, like Roy Romanow - say we failed to address it - instead of hiding behind it, and say there is one solution to it. The solution for it - Do we want to fix it? That is number one. Are we committed to fixing the problem? If we are committed to fixing the problem, there is a solution, Minister, and you do not need a health forum, you do not need to get together with the nurses' union, you do not need to get together with anybody. You have been told.
Two years ago you called a forum in at Littledale, got an appointed minister, they replaced the minister. The more I think about this, the more I realize what we need now is a change, a shuffle in there now in the Department of Health, to put some credibility back so people in this Province can come in, sit down, discuss and negotiate.
Yes, the minister is smiling. Maybe she feels her time is coming - she is going to get that little shuffle out of there now and her colleague gets shuffle back in there - because I am not sure whether she has lost the confidence of the people to address the health care issues in this Province. I really, sincerely feel you have lost the ability to function as Minister of Health, to address our concerns. I am genuinely serious about that. That is no game, I can tell you.
I do not know how you can go about it. I think (inaudible) a lame duck minister in this Province who has turned her back on concerns in this Province, who has not done what is needed to be done.
I will get on to a few other things that are very important. She talks about what we have done: We have shorter procedures, we have more day surgery. Sure we have, but we have 1,000 less beds, we have hundreds less nurses, we have layoffs, we have staff gone everywhere, beds closed, people not getting called in, casualizations working more than full hours. All of these problems are symptomatic of a system that is sick. Yes, there is sickness in our system, in our society, but there is a sickness in the delivery of health care, there is a sickness in the administration of health care, and we are not getting a very properly delivered system.
Maclean's magazine said that 40 per cent of dollars are wasted - health care, over $70 billion in this country a year, 40 per cent of that - almost $30 billion goes right down the toilet, flush it out the toilet.
I am seeing it everywhere, Minister. I am seeing it in program-based delivery where you spend half of your day, or 30 per cent of your day, in meetings and discussions and so on. It is ideal in a society with unlimited resources. The program-based system works with unlimited resources, but we do not have unlimited resources in this Province and we cannot waste our time when we could be giving front-line service.
People going home in the evening cannot get their work done because they are sitting around on discussions on issues to run a program that you say conceptually works in theory. It has not worked in practice because the resources have not been there to give the numbers to make the program work. That is wrong. Scratch it, get rid of it. Scrap it, I would say, throw it out - inefficiencies. Why should we need a bed utilization coordinator, all of these new positions? Because you have mismanaged the system to put us in a position where you have to flip a coin now and see who is the worst.
I spoke to the family of a man who was in intensive care. He was supposed to be monitored for two days. They came in and said: You are going to have to go back to a floor; somebody else needs your bed worse. Two days later, that man died in his wife's arms down on a hospital floor, when he should have been monitored there. Yes, they are real cases, and I have dozens of them. I can tell you of horror stories that I am hearing because they have been putting the medical people in such a position that they have to decide who is the worst, which one is worse.
You are telling us that urgent emergency surgeries are getting done. That is what the minister said. In other words, the heart surgery that was cancelled last week because there was no nurse, that was not urgent or it was not an emergency. That person who had waited for several months, that is not important. When we have a list gone from 120 - when I first became health critic I checked 110 to 115 people, I think, on the list. It is up in the mid-two hundreds now. It is getting worse, Minister - empty beds.
First there was a problem - anaesthetist - you had to cancel it, there was no space. We put in space. Then it was profusionists, and now it is nurses.
Look, you are trying to tackle one little fire at a time and go on to the next fire. You do not look at the whole picture. You have lost your ability to be able to function in a setting and plan properly in health care. You have lost it. The department has lost it. Your credibility is gone, I can tell you, in the Department of Health in terms of delivering health care.
You have a report that you said four times was going to be available, an Atkinson report, and you cannot even deliver it because the report is so damning of the system here, and your responsibility of that board you appointed being accountable to you. You have lost the link of accountability in your appointed boards.
Then, the audacity to say we are going to scrap them and run them out of St. John's, the Premier said, when at the same time you were planning to do the same thing yourself. Imagine, if that is not what - what is it? I am not allowed to use the word hypocrite. I wish I could. I probably would but I cannot, and I respect that.
It is wrong, I say to the minister. We have major problems and they are getting worse by the day. As each nurse - and, I can tell the minister, it is not just in the nursing area. We are seeing it with other allied health professions. We are seeing it with other professional people. We are seeing it with doctors, too, because the measures that were put in did not address it.
You expect nurses looking for cooperation - now, what a scam. Treasury Board first, then the Minister of Health, then the Premier: We are looking for cooperation from nurses. What do you want cooperation from nurses for? You have that; you had that all along. What did you do? Legislate then back to work. Then you got up in the House and said: We will put 125 new nurses in now. Then you come back and say: We have to go back and talk to them, how to solve it, and make your announcements whenever you feel like it.
More political manipulation. The situation is becoming sickening by the day, what is going on, a feeble attempt to give the public the impression and trying to shift the burden of guilt. I think I saw it printed in nice little letters in The Telegram, trying to shift the burden of guilt from themselves on to the nurses.
I can tell you, it did not work. You failed dismally because of it, and you had better wake up and realize that there are issues that have to be dealt with in this Province. You cannot pay lip service in an election campaign.
February 6, 1999, three days before the election, the Premier - I can see him now - I have been convinced, putting aside other issues, that the staffing issue needs to be addressed and is one that I intend to intervene on personally.
That is what he said. Here is what he said: You can't have stressed out people working double shifts, being called back on short notice, burnt out, running and operating within the system. What does it do?
You cannot have that going on in the system, I say to the minister. I will get a chance to speak again.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the Leader of the NDP, just now, and the Opposition House Leader, about putting a motion on the makeup of the committees that have been referred to, the Estimates Committees. I would like to ask leave to put that motion now very quickly, the naming of the Estimates Committees, that I gave you just now, without taking away from anybody's time.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice and by leave move that the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Government Services Committee: Finance; Works Services and Transportation; Government Services and Lands; Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Public Service Commission.
Be it that the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Social Services Committee: Human Resources and Employment; Education; Health and Community Services; Environment and Labour; Justice.
That the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Resource Committee: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Technology; Mines and Energy; Development and Rural Renewal.
I move that the referrals of the heads of expenditure to the Estimates Committee become effective on May 3, 1999.
I move an amendment to the resolution that is seconded by the Member for Bonavista North.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Honourable House call upon the Government, employers represented by the Newfoundland & Labrador Health & Community Services Association, and the Nurses represented by the Newfoundland & Labrador Nurses Union to immediately take collective action to address Nursing Human Resources issues, including recruitment and retention."
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Honourable House call upon the Government, employers represented by the Newfoundland and Labrador Health & Community Services Association, and the Nurses represented by the Newfoundland & Labrador Nurses Union to immediately take collective action to address nursing human resources issues, including recruitment and retention."
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I contend that it is not in order. It destroys our resolution calling on this government. We are not calling on the nurses' union that are not empowered to do it, or the Health Care Corporation is not in power. The power is with government. It destroys the intent of the resolution and I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule it out of order.
I have not seen the amendment yet.
MR. TULK: Just a minute now, I listened to you.
- and in particular as they relate to nursing care in this Province and our hospital situation in general.
The intent of the resolution is not destroyed. It might be a different method of doing it. It is not as politicized, I say to the hon. gentleman, as his resolution was. It is more, in a cooperative manner, trying to solve the problems in the health care system; but the intent of the resolution is still there and I would ask Your Honour to make a ruling that indeed it is in order.
We will recess for a few minutes to consider the amendments, and come back.
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!
The Chair took some time to consider the amendment. Based on our Standing Order 36, and '567 on page 175 of Beauchesne relative to amendments, the Chair rules the amendment to be in order.
We have put forward this amendment to try to begin the process of bringing the parties together to identify ways of addressing the outstanding issues; as we see them, mostly focused around retention and recruitment. We know that there is a national nursing shortage, and again this Province is experiencing its component of nursing shortages, being a part of that national shortage. We also know that with the announcement of creating 125 new positions, and with the conversion of casual to permanent of 200 positions, we know that this is for us a very good beginning to try to address some of those issues.
We know and we believe that it has been consistent in the system that about an appropriate number of casuals would be 15 per cent in the system. With the introduction of the new positions and the conversions we believe we will have between 18 per cent and 20 per cent casualization in the Province. It is certainly well on its way to trying to address the issues. Now, in some areas of our Province the casualization is much higher than others and I think we have to work very hard to try to address those issues.
We believe the 15 per cent level of casualization in the Province will be necessary for a number of reasons. One, because for many employers they need to have at least a 15 per cent flexibility, even though over the last number of years it is has been quite a bit higher. There has been a constant movement forward across the country to reduce the percentage of casualization. So with our current rate between 18 per cent and 20 per cent we believe we are certainly in the decline towards a more appropriate level at 15 per cent.
We also know that in some events while the majority of nurses would prefer to have permanent status there will always be some nurses, perhaps very few in nature, but there will always be some who do require casual status and want casual status because of some of the flexibility it accords. While a permanent position does give pro-ration of benefits, particularly if it is part-time with full benefits if permanent full-time, some nurses would choose to work on a casual capacity. In the previous agreement that was one of the reasons why paying casuals in lieu of benefits became an issue, and that is why the current rate now is 20 per cent for casuals over and above their salary in lieu of the benefits they do not get as a permanent employee of the system.
In terms of our commitment to health care, I know in this Province we will always have challenges for a whole number of reasons but I was really glad to hear the House Leader say and admit that there is not an endless pot of money in this Province. I think that is a first, because I think it is a really good indication that he does recognize that there is not an endless pot of money in this Province and, in fact, that we have to make some very difficult choices, although we have chosen to spend well over one-third of our total Budget on health care. In this last budget year we announced $40 million to retire the debt; in addition to the $10 million we announced last year, another $15 million.
I think that is a very important indication based on our ability of our commitment. Do we still need to do more? Yes, there is no doubt about it, we do have a lot more that we need to do. I think our commitment of putting over one-third of our budget into Health and Community Services is a very important point, as we say that health care is our number one priority, particularly as it relates to our budgetary requirements.
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): A point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
The Minister of Health and Community Services said I do not support the health care boards. I've never indicated I do not support health care boards. Let me be emphatic. I have never made that point. I have respect for people on and running those health care boards, I might add.
What I take offence to are boards appointed by the minister when the minister does not ensure accountability to them. That is my problem.
I guess it is a point of interpretation. When you say you want to eliminate the current structure, the board structure, it would lead one to conclude that that party in particular does not support the board structure. That was during their election campaign.
I think it is important to note, because we are talking about consistency and speaking out of both sides of your mouth and making all those sorts of insinuations. I have to say - and it is important to point out - we have been consistent in our support for the boards. We are not like the members opposite who first said elect them, then said eliminate them, and then said replace them all. There is a little bit of inconsistency over there.
I think it is important to have it on the record because that is a very key and important point and is very much integral to how the system works in this particular Province. Because we do have an appointed board structure that we in this government support very much. We will continue to work with them to try to continue to enhance our health care system.
I would like to say, as well, that I think it is important for the record that while these statistics I referred to are not our own provincial statistics, they are national statistics from the Canadian Institute of Health Information, a national body that looks at ratios and other sorts of statistics. They have placed Newfoundland as the third best province in its ratio to the public, to the RNs. I think that is an important point.
The other point I want to say is about our commitment to health care. This Province is one of the only provinces in the country that maintains the ratio of skill mix - particulary in our long-term care sector and in our acute care sector - of licensed practical nurses and RNs only. We are one of the few provinces in this country, if not the only province in the country, that does not use untrained, unlicensed workers in long-term care and acute care sectors. Again, I think that speaks to our commitment to the quality of health care.
More specifically to this particular amended resolution is that we do recognize that there are nursing shortages, particularly in some areas over others. Not in all areas, but certainly in a large number of areas we are experiencing difficulties. We also need to recognize that with the current structure of the collective agreement, when we fill positions and make them permanent or create new positions they come out of the casual pool of nurses. Because positions have to be posted and filled internally before we can go outside the collective agreement and post them outside.
It is only normal to expect the casual pool to decrease while we are filling permanent positions. I know there are other factors involved. It is not just the filling of permanent positions, it is the fact that we are being heavily recruited and it is the time of the year. In addition to that, it is the annual leave period of time of the year.
We do support moving forward, addressing issues particularly around recruitment and retention. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that we will move forward to address issues. We have invited the parties to work with us. We hope that they will come forward and meet with us on this issue. We at no time said we would not act. We have offered them an opportunity to come and meet with us and to go through some of the initiatives we would like to put forward, in conjunction with some of the initiatives I hope the health care boards will put forward, and we can all together come to the best resolution to begin to address the issue of retention and recruitment, in addition to the other initiatives that we have put forward for our health care and our commitment to making it and retaining it as a quality health care system.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not we, them.
MR. FRENCH: On that side, when they legislated them back to work, that the minister did not stand in her place and show some backbone and intestinal fortitude, and vote the way that she spoke at one particular point in time when she was the President of the nurses' union. I can only say my, how the times have changed. My, what a Cabinet position can do for you. My oh my! How you can forget where you came from and forget the people you worked with for a number of years.
It is too bad. It is very sad when we see the former President of the nurses' union of Newfoundland and Labrador taking the stance that she has taken to watch this amendment as I watched a year ago when I introduced a private member's resolution for the personal care homes in this Province. To date, what an insult to those people. What an insult to the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. What an insult to the RNC of Newfoundland and Labrador who supported these nurses when they were on strike. What an insult to see the Minister of Finance, the highest law maker in this Province, sit in his seat and jeer the nurses who sat in the gallery. What an insult to those people. I sat here and saw it with my own two eyes.
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think all of us know the rules in this House. We are not allowed to tell lies in the Legislature. I believe that the suggestions now in terms of what the hon. member is saying happened in this House - I sat here through this whole debate and saw no such action. It is totally false, unlike when the member opposite gave a rude gesture with his finger in a debate earlier before Christmas. I believe he should retract and withdraw the statement because it is an absolute, downright lie, what the man is saying.
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. Opposition House Leader.
The Minister of Mines and Energy rose here and imputed motives and almost directly said that the member here was lying. That is out of order, I would say. It is imputing motives and the Minister of Mines and Energy's statement is out of order.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: He did not impute motives, Mr. Speaker. He said he was lying and that is unparliamentary. He has to withdraw it.
I ask the hon. member to take his seat, please.
MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.
MR. FRENCH: First of all I think the Minister of Mines and Energy should withdraw his remark. I do not know what he saw but I know what I saw. He talks about a gesture that went on here. We can all say that, to take the heat off his former buddy who sat up here. That was no problem at all. This is the spin doctoring that we have heard from this minister. The nurses saw it. They had very uncomplimentary words for that particular minister. I sat here and watched the chief lawmaker of this Province and the Minister of Finance go like that to people sitting in the gallery when they were ejected.
MR. FRENCH: That is the truth, Mr. Speaker, that is not a lie. I have no intentions of withdrawing that. None!
I would ask the hon. member to take his seat.
The Chair has heard enough on this issue, and the Chair will take this matter under advisement and rule at a later date.
The Chair now recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe the Minister of Mines and Energy just referred to me as a liar, that I was lying in this House, and I ask now that those remarks be withdrawn.
MR. GRIMES: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the rules of the House I withdraw the statement and I wish he would do the same.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister.
I have no intention of withdrawing of what I said. It happened. I will tell you one thing, I am as much a man as anybody on that side is. I am as much a man as you are, partner.
MR. FRENCH: I am as much a man as you are. I am as much a man as anybody over there, Mr. Speaker, believe you me.
MR. FRENCH: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue. When I see these things happening and I listen to the Minister of Mines and Energy - I think he was up about ten times. Every time we would put up a speaker I believe, again to see one man from the other side jumping up time after time when nobody else over there would get up. The person they wanted to get up I do not believe would get up. I do not believe that particular individual would get up.
I understood it was going to be a free vote. I would certainly like to question the freedom of the vote. When we see these things happening and we hear what we just heard, and we see the motion that changes the intent of this motion; when we watch what is going on in health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we talk about people who have been prepped and ready to go for heart surgery seven, eight and nine times; when we have a doctor in the hospital who put out a report and asked how many people in the Province of Newfoundland or how many people in his area of the Province died while waiting on open heart surgery; when that doctor paid for the ad himself and got seven replies, and asked in a meeting that I was in if there was any member there from the House of Assembly who would stand up and ask that question; well, the question was asked. The question certainly was not answered.
When we look at now nurses who are being recalled or called back on overtime, when we look at paying people triple-and-a-half time, then I believe it is time that somebody really took a good look and a hard look at exactly what we are doing and where we are going.
To move this amendment I think is a shame. To look to call the nurses of this Province after they legislated them back to work, I think it is a insult to their intelligence and it is morally wrong.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote against it?
MR. FRENCH: Definitely, without question. Vote against that amendment? Sure. I am going to vote against the amendment just as much as you had intended to vote against the motion, I say to the minister.
MR. FRENCH: I think you are one face the nurses will certainly remember after your conduct in the House while the particular piece of legislation was going on. They will remember you.
MR. FRENCH: You do not need to hope that. They will remember you, believe you me.
MR. FRENCH: Dr. Arthur Grebneff. You do not know the man, I assume.
MR. FRENCH: I see, very good. Again, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had his opportunity the night the legislation was passed. He certainly could have risen in his place anytime throughout that day but it did not happen. I think that this amendment is wrong and cannot and will not support it. I believe in the motion that was put forward by my colleague, and that is the only thing I would certainly be willing to support.
I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to stand today to support my colleague the Minister of Health in her amendment to the resolution. Today is a time for reflection. This is the first time that this House has convened since the passing of Bill 3. I think I will start off on reflecting the events of Bill 3.
Bringing forward Bill 3 was something that neither myself nor this government took any pleasure in. It was legislation that was necessary, necessary because we had heard from the Health and Community Services Association that health care in this Province was undergoing a crisis. We knew how long it would take to get it through the House of Assembly and we had to take the responsible position that we did. As I said when I started off, neither myself nor this government took any joy in bringing forward this legislation.
The benefits that occurred to nurses because of this legislation are many. The contract agreement that was narrowly rejected last October provided for a 7 per cent raise for nurses. When I was appointed to this position as President of Treasury Board the first thing I did was look at our Province's finances. When I did that I had the stark realization that it was almost ten years since any government, previous to ours, had the ability to provide a raise for our public sector. That says a lot. We had gone through a very harsh economic climate in this Province. We had now reached a position where we were able to provide an increase for our public sector workers.
I believe the 7 per cent increase we provided was fair. Do I think we should have paid more? I would have to say that I myself, and all members of this government, would have probably liked to pay more, but the reality is we were not able to pay more. If you ask your friends and neighbours, no matter what district you are from: Are you willing to pay more so nurses, as part of our public sector, can have more in their pockets? Yes, everybody would love to pay more, but the truth is we are the highest taxed province in all of Canada. None of us can afford to pay more taxes. Really, what is the reality here when you cannot afford to pay more taxes? You only can do it one other way, and that means cutting services. It also means cutting employees.
I am sure all of us seated in this House will remember 1996 when we as a government inherited a $300 million deficit. We were faced with the problem of what to do. We had to bring in a massive downsizing program. If you speak to any public sector employee within this Province they will tell you that before Christmas each year was a troubling time because most of them did not know if they were going to have their job after Christmas or not. That was considered to be getting ready for the budget for March 31, the adjustment period.
You talk to any public sector employee here today and they will tell you that for the first time in a long time they have a great measure of comfort with this government because they have not gone through that pre-adjustment period before Christmas in the past two years.
They now can go out and make plans. They can make plans to buy homes, to buy cars, go travelling, do things with their family, improve their houses, do whatever they need to do, because they have some stability in their lives to go out and make these financial decisions.
I want to tell you the benefits that we have brought in to nurses - the 7 per cent increase that will be paid over a thirty-nine month period, retroactive to a year ago April 1. The in-charge pay premium for nurses who are either team leaders or nurses in charge, that will increase twenty cents an hour, from sixty-five to eighty-cents. Casual nurses will also receive an increase in their in lieu of benefit pay. This will increase that amount only from 14 per cent to 20 per cent of their salary. So that is significant, along with their 7 per cent.
Do you know that over the next three years the cost of these compensation measures will be $27.9 million? We are talking about new nursing positions, 125 brand new permanent nursing positions, but you cannot forget the 200 casuals because they are 200 new nursing positions.
MS THISTLE: Yes. When they are classified as permanent, they are permanent and they are new. You can put any name you wish on them, but they are new.
MS THISTLE: Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? This is the largest single increase in the number of permanent nursing positions in our Province's history. That says a lot. On top of that, government is willing to work with nurses to look at the twelve-hours shifts. That may be one of the ways to reduce stress.
Now, I am going to tell you that nurses are a very, very important part of our health care sector. I could not help - all the while during this controversy, I held onto a letter from a constituent of mine from Grand Falls-Windsor who works in the health care sector. When I read this letter, it told me about all of the other people in the health care sector that are resource people and accommodate and work with nurses and make sure that the whole health care sector works. One single group in not an island onto themselves; they all need each other.
This person went on to tell me how - she used an example like: Ms Smith was experiencing chest pains and had her family doctor refer her for X-ray and blood work. The first thing she did was go into a word processing equipment operator to register all of that stuff. It was a snowy day when she arrived at the hospital, so what happened then? The maintenance department sanded the sidewalks, and when she entered the hospital a utility worker mopped the water from the melted snow off the floor. Then she asked the receptionist at the front desk where she should register. Then another person, the registration clerk, entered all the data that Ms Smith needed to have her tests completed.
When she had her blood work done, the laboratory aid collected Ms Smith's blood. That was delivered to the materials and management department and it was paid for by the financial services department.
She needed a urine sample. Therefore, the washroom that she went in was cleaned by a domestic worker. She needed to have something to eat before she went home, so she went to the cafeteria. From that cafeteria she was able to order a menu created by who? Dietitians. Prepared by who? Cooks. Who served that? Food service workers.
After lunch, she went to the diagnostic imaging department for an X-ray. Her papers were processed by a clerk. Then, she put on a gown that was washed and folded by a laundry worker. She had her X-ray done by an X-ray technologist. The films are processed in a machine that was serviced by a biomed technician. The X-ray was read by a radiologist and typed by a typist.
Now, she was not finished. She went on to the respiratory department for an ECG and a stress test. An ECG technician performed the test and a technologist did the stress test.
Is the message getting across? What I am saying is that no one profession in the health care system works alone. Not one group works alone. Every group is an integral part of our health care system, and there are dozens of professions that cross over these lines in the hospital system.
When we look at the fact that we are looking at a possible nurses' shortage, you know something, that is not a local problem. It is not a local problem to St. John's; nor is it a local problem to Grand Falls-Windsor or Harbour Breton or Baie Verte. It is not a provincial problem. It is a national problem. I would even think it is an international problem.
What we are saying is this is a difficult time for nurses. There is no question. You do not go through an event leading up to legislation, and since legislation, without feeling anger, resentment, bitterness, and all the emotions that go with that event. We, as a government, understand that. What we are saying at this time is maybe a cooling off period is necessary. In saying so, we are still offering an opportunity for dialogue. Whatever happens to this whole entire issue, the fact of the matter is that government has to work with nurses. The employer, the health care association, they have to work with nurses. We all have to work together. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but none of us can separate ourselves for an extended period of time.
We, as a government, had to take our responsibility seriously and we did that. We, as a government, were asked to take the matter into control and we did that. What is important on this today is the fact that legislation, Bill 3, is behind us. It was totally unique. It was totally unique to this situation. The nurses' disagreement that could not be settled, that was the situation.
Bill 3 in no way affects any future contracts that nurses will enter into with government, and it does not affect any other contract that will come forward to government in the collective bargaining range. It was entirely unique to this nurses' situation and will have no bearing on future contracts. We did what we felt was necessary and responsible at the time, based on our ability to pay nurses and other public sector workers.
We had a situation where we needed to take control of the looming crisis that was within our health care system. That is now behind us. It is almost one month behind us, but what is ahead of us is the fact that we need to foster a new relationship with nurses. As the President of Treasury Board, I am willing and ready to talk to nurses again.
MS THISTLE: No leave? Okay.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is denied.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
I have to rise. I did not intend to rise today, because my colleagues were intending to bring forward a resolution which made such good common sense that we thought there would be only a speaker from this side of the House and one speaker from the government side of the House, and that we would have unanimous approval for the resolution put forward for the Member for Ferryland, because it made such good common sense.
What that resolution basically said was they would call upon the government to do what was right, to be fair to nurses, and to go and take unto itself the powers they have, by virtue of being the majority in the House, to take steps to improve nurses' remuneration, to do what the public of this Province has said should be done, and to improve working conditions and staffing levels to ensure the proper functioning of the health care system.
I say to the government, what other responsibilities do you have? When the government moved to alter the resolution, what they altered was what we have asked them to do. We on this side said to the government: Would you take steps to improve nursing remuneration? Obviously since the government has changed the resolution, put forward their thing: No, we will not do that. We said: Take steps to improve nurses' working conditions. Because they changed the resolution, they are simply saying: No, we do not want to do that.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is supposed to be speaking to an amendment. The resolution has been amended and he is standing up obviously with the old resolution in his hands, speaking to the resolution as opposed to the amendment. We are speaking to an amendment resolution and not the one (inaudible). Perhaps the hon. gentlemen might like to be a bit relevant.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that point of order is about as relevant as most other things that come from the Government House Leader. The point of order itself is totally irrelevant. What it does show, though, is the contempt the government has for any resolution that is designed to improve health care and the nursing situation in this Province. It shows the contempt the government has for nurses. It shows that they do not want to address the real issues. The real issues were what was contained in the member's resolution when he put it forward today in good faith.
As a matter of fact, when we were having a discussion in our caucus we felt that this resolution made such good common sense that the government would say: Here is a good positive resolution. We will vote for it because we want to improve the nursing remuneration, we want to improve nurses' working conditions and we want to improve the nurses staffing levels so that we can ensure that the health care system functions properly.
We were surprised to come in and find that the government, in their very first speaker, had the minister stand up and offer an amendment to that resolution. We here call upon the government to solve government's created problems.
It was not the boards of health in this Province that created the problem that is causing the crisis in health care. It was not the nurses' union that created the problems. The problem was created by the government when the government decided they would not abide by the current law in this Province. The current law says, under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, that you could have binding arbitration to resolve those differences. The government said: No, we are going to be the bully, we are going to browbeat, we are going to intimidate, we are going to frustrate the system, we are going to put at risk the integrity of the entire health care system, but we will do it.
Then the minister gets up today, the President of Treasury Board, and she quotes a lengthy letter from one of her constituents. I would ask her to stand in her place tomorrow and read a letter from another constituent of hers which wasn't nearly as complimentary as the one she just quoted a few minutes ago. Perhaps on tomorrow when I get a chance I will bring that letter down to the House and I will read another letter that went to the minister from a Ms Noseworthy, who is a constituent of the hon. the President of Treasury Board.
What we have here today is certainly a case of where we have, again, confrontation versus cooperation. The nurses who have been slapped in the face, they have been browbeat, they have been bullied, they have been stamped on, everything that you can do to a profession this government has done to nurses. Now, after they slapped them in the face, after they have gone and said: That is it, we are going to do what we want with your collective agreement, we are going to destroy it, we are going to say to you that if you do not agree with what we want we will change the law to make it the law of the Province to impose a collective agreement, we will not give you the provisions of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, but what we will do is create Bill 3. Then, after we have an Easter break and all that kind of thing, now the Minister of Health comes back and says: Would you please forget about all of that?
What the minister has to realize is that that is not the way the world operates. The nurses of this Province are not about to enter into a cuddling session with the Minister of Health, the President of Treasury Board, or any members of the Liberal Party. They have good reason not to because they have been treated so unfairly.
Then the minister stands in her place and says she is going to convert 200 casual positions into full-time positions. Then she says they are new positions. Not only that but then she quotes Budget dollars which will have the effect of saying: That is all new money. We happen to know the issue in casualization is not in the total hours worked, it is the fact of the unpredictability of the hours. In fact, the total remuneration for the 200 full-time positions, in contrast to the money that was paid before for the 200 casual positions, the total amount of money is not that much different, but the minister claims that is all new money now. Certainly, the issue of double counting here in terms of financial analysis is certainly a very real issue. Nobody is being fooled by the minister's comments in that regard.
The Premier of this Province made commitments to nurses. He told them he would look after them. They feel betrayed. They feel they have been trod upon. They feel that what is happening here is certainly not fair to them.
I watched television a few days ago and it was on NTV, I think it was. They showed a young nurse leaving Newfoundland. She was at the airport, and as she was putting her luggage into the conveyor system she started to cry. She did not want to leave Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have knowledge now of some of the leading health care professionals that are leaving this Province because they know that the working environment in this Province is not fair, is not conducive to good professionalism. We know as well that this government has to face the reality. People are not going to stay. Not only that, but they do not have to stay. If you are offered a full-time job in Nova Scotia where you are going to get $10,000 more, then you are on the boat and you are on your way. Mr. Speaker, if you are offered a full-time job in the Northern Territory, Nunavut, then you are on your way because it is going to pay you $15,000 to $18,000 more.
The Government of Ontario was down here recruiting nurses. We have to be competitive, and that is what nurses are saying. They are saying they want to be paid more in keeping with what their professional qualifications can give them in other parts of this country. They want to be paid for the value of the work they do.
This government decides they will go and browbeat them, they will trample them, and then, after slapping them around, after really, really being pigheaded, denying them the laws of this Province, denying them their rights under binding arbitration, then the Minister of Health stands in her place today and says: I want you now to forget about all of that. We want you to take the selective amnesia brush, you might say, and just go and wipe all of that out.
It is like going to a computer screen with a magnet or something, and you are going to say: Let's erase all of that. Let's forget about that. That was in the past, you know. We beat you up a month ago. We had you here in the lobby for days and days. You were out there trying to make a point and we just ignored you. Now you are saying, that was a month ago. It was okay then, we wanted to beat you up at that point, but now we want you to say: Forget about all of that, and would you please now come in and be nice to us? We want to be nice to you now at this particular stage.
Nurses are not going to fall for that. We know from the news what is happening in Corner Brook.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) expect the nurses not to fall for? When somebody lays out a positive approach to this problem - what is wrong with the hon. gentleman? What does he have to be so negative about? The Minister of Health is trying to solve a problem here.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in my commentary the Government House Leader has stood in his place, and for the second time in a row he has no point of order. He just likes to get up and make commentary because he does not want to accept the fact that this government was profoundly unfair to nurses, profoundly unfair to that whole profession. Now, after three or four weeks have passed, he expects nurses to come back into their table, to be very understanding, to say: Yes, we forgive you for beating up on us. We forgive you for imposing 7 per cent. We forgive you for not putting enough nurses into the health care system.
What the President of Treasury Board is saying today, what the Minister of Health is saying, is that they want to have this great love-in with nurses. Well, I would be surprised if the nurses of this Province are interested at this stage in coming to any kind of a table that the Minister of Health or that the President of Treasury Board would prepare. It is a case of where you can only bang people over the head so often and say to them, after three weeks, we expect you to forgive and forget.
As the President of Treasury Board said a few minutes ago, she wants to foster a new relationship. I certainly say to the minister, they have not gone about fostering the new relationship in a very fair and reasonable manner.
We want to have stability in the health care system - certainly everybody in this House wants to have stability - but the government has the responsibility of leadership, and they have not shown great leadership. They have used the strong-arm tactics, they have used the big bully stick, and now that they have used all of that they are saying to the nurses: Would you please forget everything and come back? We want to work together in a collegial manner.
That is not likely to happen. We wish, on this side of the House, that government would come to its senses. When they meet with nurses we want them to come to their senses about the fact that nurses are leaving this Province in record numbers, come to their senses about the fact that the crisis that they created in nurses was their own creation, because nurses say we want to stay here but we are not going to stay here for the wages that you pay. They can do better for themselves by travelling elsewhere, to other provinces. We cannot expect them to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. We wish they would. In fact, many of them have waited for so long that now when they are offered full-time positions, they are on their way.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has been an absolute failure when it comes to recruitment, when it comes to retention, when it comes to conversion of casuals to full time, an absolute failure. She had the opportunity of creating more positions. She waited too long, and now she is trying to rescue the crisis from a disaster that she herself created.
We say to minister, do not expect your former colleagues to rush in here to come to your table because they are not likely to do that any time soon.
MR. H. HODDER: As a matter of fact, the people in Corner Brook have told the minister what they intend to do. It is regrettable, but it is certainly very clear that nurses in this Province are not buying the message that the minister is now trying to communicate.
I wanted to rise and have a few words on the amendment that has been put forward by the Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue.
MS JONES: - and a serious debate that is ongoing today regarding health care, regarding nurses in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, people in Newfoundland and Labrador place a great deal of importance on health care and education. Historically, we always have. That has not changed. It has already been indicated, the amount of money that we invest each and every year into health care alone in this Province - one-third of the budget of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Historically, we have placed a great deal of importance on health care. We still place a great deal of importance. We do so because it is a known fact in society that when you have people who are healthy, who are well educated, that the economy of any province, community or country is going to thrive and grow both economically and socially.
We place a great deal of importance on nurses in our Province. I personally have a great deal of respect for nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular in Labrador. The nurses in Costal Labrador do an admirable job. They work in a very challenging environment, a very isolated environment, and one that I would think would be foreign to most people in the profession in St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and other areas.
When they go there to work, they go there knowing full well the challenge that lies ahead, not only for them as a professional in the field in which they work, but also the challenges of living in small rural society, the challenges of isolation, of the lack of communication that sometimes exists.
Mr. Speaker, they make a commitment, a very strong commitment. Their commitment is to the people that they go there to serve. Their priority is always the patient. It is always the people in the community in which they have chosen to work. They do so in support of each other. They draw upon the community in order to support them in their job, in their professions, and in the role that they play.
They do that because in a society such as we have there has to be dialogue, there has to be discussion. We have to talk to one another in order to overcome the challenges, in order to adapt to the changes that are occurring, whether it be in health care or whether it be in another sector of society.
The amendment or the motion that the minister has put forward today addresses that very issue. What we are saying is: Come to the table; let us talk about this. This is a problem. No one on this side of the House is saying that we do not have problems in the health care system, because we do have problems. Each of us within our own districts, within our own hometowns and regions, recognize what those problems are. What we are saying is that we have to deal with them.
Mr. Speaker, last night I was listening to the Open Line program on my way home. I heard this one gentleman who called in - I think he was from Central Newfoundland - and he talked about his wife and the serious illness that she has, and it is a very serious illness. That man talked with a great deal of passion. He had tears as he told the announcer his story. His story is that his wife is critically ill, that she has already had her surgery postponed on two occasions because of the uncertainty with nurses in our system today.
I listened to him and I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that when he told his story it was not because he had sympathy for the position that government is placed in, in this Province, in trying to deal with the challenges in health care and a restricted budget. He did not do so because of the sympathy that he has for nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador, in trying to achieve the concessions that they have laid on the table. It was about something bigger than that. It was not about who is right and who is wrong in this situation, but it was about people. It was about people who are sick, people who are critically ill, people who are out there in our Province today who need good health care and need to have people on the front lines in order to provide for that health care.
That is what his story was all about, and I think that is the focus that we have to maintain not only in this House of Assembly but outside of it as well; that is that we focus on the issue at hand. We are not here to be the people who decide what is right and wrong on our own merit. We do so in consultation with others. That is why, when you have a situation like this, you invite the health care professionals, the people who deliver the services in the field, you invite the people who are being affected on the front lines, and you invite the people who manage the financial regime of it. Between us, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we can deal with the situation - I know we can - but we cannot do it in isolation of each other. I think that is the point we are trying to make.
We also have to realize that the situation we are faced with in health care in our Province today is not insular of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians alone, but it is a national problem. It is one that affects provinces all across Canada. We have already heard through the media what is happening in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, in particular in Saskatchewan, and what is happening there. Although they have also been legislated back to work, they have defied legislation and they are still out, but look at what it is doing to the people in their province. Look at what it is doing to the people all across Canada; and it is no different in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think we have a responsibility, and the responsibility is to deal with issues like this. Historically, we have always placed a great deal of importance on health care and we have always made plans or took means and action to deal with it. We are going to take action on this situation. Certainly we already have, even in the recent Budget. We have invested more money into the health care system to deal with certain outstanding issues that had been there.
As I said, this is a national issue and it is not one that is just within our laps to deal with. That is why, when ministers meet across the country, they deal with situations like this. They have a dialogue and they talk about it. They discuss a strategy in terms of dealing with it, and that is all that we are asking of the nurses in the system. That is all we are asking of the people who deliver health care in our Province, that we sit down, we talk about this, we have a dialogue, and we look at how we can find a way to reach a consensus that is going to be acceptable to all people.
In terms of the outstanding issues - and I have heard all the stories on Open Line. I hear all the nurses who call in and I understand where most of them come from. I have listened also to the general public, and this is not a win-win situation for anyone. There is no one view that is more popular than the other. It is not about who is going to come out on top in all of this. It is about the patients or the sick people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and how we are best going to service those people.
We have looked at building new hospitals in this Province. We have looked at increasing the number of casual positions to full time. We have looked at putting more nurses into the system. We have looked at ways to keep rural doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador. All across the board, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to deal with each situation as it arises. This situation is no different but it is very difficult. I am not saying this because it is this government that is dealing with it today. It could be another government that is dealing with it tomorrow. It is very difficult to address any situation when you have people who are not willing to even sit down at the table and begin a dialogue. That is what makes it very difficult.
I have seen the leader of the nurses' union and I have listened to the comments she has made in representing the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. One thing that always stands out in my mind, one of the things that I always have difficulty with, is how any individual can take on a position of that calibre and still not be willing to sit, discuss, dialogue and keep an open mind. After all, whether it be an organization, a group, a union, or a member of a government, we all have a responsibility to the people we serve. In carrying out that responsibility we have to explore each and every opportunity.
There are going to be some cases where we are going to get all the concessions that we want met and everything will be done the way we want it, but that is a very idealistic world. Lots of times we will have issues that will be outstanding, that will not be dealt with, maybe, to the greatest satisfaction that we like. It does not mean that we turn our back and walk away, that we not be willing to continue to work on new strategies, on new opportunities and new alternatives. Because I think that when we start doing that we start losing the focus of the reason why we are here in the first place, and that is to represent people, to reach conciliation, to do things that are in the best interest of the public and the people that we serve.
In order to do that we have to have to have reasonable, creative and informative dialogue. We have to be innovative, we have to be flexible, and we have to be willing participants. Until that happens no one person can solve this particular issue. It is not one that is created by one entity and it isn't one that can be solved by one entity. Unless, of course, you want to be the kind of representative that does not deal in consultation with people but deals in isolation with people. Then that is a different story, and not a route that this government has certainly chosen to proceed. Since the beginning they have dealt in consultation with people whether it be on health care, education, industry development, fisheries, or outdoor resources. They will continue to do that.
In closing, I would just like to encourage the leaders in the nurses' union, the leaders in the health care sector, to work with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to try and reach a consensus, to have some dialogue on this particular issue. Because it is the people out there in our Province today that are having their surgeries cancelled, their treatments delayed, and their family members and individuals who are being put through very difficult times. These are the people we have to keep in mind. We have to make changes and be able to act now in order to alleviate a lot of the burden and hardship that they are presently undergoing.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I support the amendment put forward. I think it is a very worthwhile amendment and one that I hope to see that we will continue to practice in the future.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
I want to take a few more minutes. I really apologize for getting up before the person who got sandbagged by the Premier, I must say, on that side, the person who was quoted in the newspaper on the West Coast of this Province saying he was sandbagged by the Premier. No wonder he did not get in that last Cabinet shuffle. No wonder he is still back where he is to, I might add.
MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that the hon. member rose in his place to close the debate. The Chair did not see any other member standing so (inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: It is Private Members' Day. It is 4:40 p.m. (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: No, I am sorry. It is 4:45 p.m. It has been normal, I think, in this House to let members continue on until the time.
To that point of order.
If the hon. member wishes, or if it is the leave of the House, I suppose, if there is another member that wishes to speak, I suppose, on this we can do that for the next two minutes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it was due to come back to this side so the Member for Cape St. Francis was going to speak. I indicated that he said it was only a minute or two anyway, so we figured we would move the closing. So if not, I guess somebody on this side would be entitled to speak next.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) of the Member for Cape St. Francis to speak.
MR. SULLIVAN: No I didn't (inaudible).
MR. TULK: Yes you did, by standing.
MR. TULK: If that is the case, it should come back to this gentleman back here.
The Chair did not see any hon. member standing so he recognized the hon. Opposition House Leader. If there is another member who wishes to speak for the next two minutes, then I guess it is in order that he speak.
Seeing that there is only one minute left, if the Member for Humber East wants to speak I will give leave for him to speak for a minute.
I just want to make a couple of quick comments, and by the time remaining on the clock that is about all I am going to get a chance to make.
The amendment to the resolution is very clear. All that the hon. minister is asking is an opportunity to sit down with the employers and with the nurses to continue a dialogue, a dialogue which, I might say, was terminated at the start of the strike. We have never met with the nurses subsequent to that. We have only met through a mediator and we have never come back for any discussion.
The Member for Humber East talked about all we are asking in an amendment is an opportunity to sit down with the nurses' union and other people. You had a great opportunity to sit down with them. It is called collective bargaining! You decided to use force to drive them back to work by exercising back-to-work legislation.
MR. SULLIVAN: Bill 3 told how you felt about nurses in this Province, and that is right. Bill 3 told how you respected nurses in this Province. I can tell you I cannot see how people can sit down - I am sure you must have said something in caucus on it. If you did not say something in caucus on it there is something wrong. If you did not stand up, knowing that casual nurses are working more than full time, that people are being called back to work double time, and people can hardly stand.
Last weekend they had to shut down a coronary care unit in this Province with five beds when sick people at Health Sciences wanted to shift them over and they could not send them over - three people - because there was nobody there to work. That to me is not appropriate care, when a person came to work 8:00 in the morning and did not go home until close to midnight. People came in at 8:00 and did not get a break until after 1:00. A person needed two people to care for them. They didn't have enough nurses to give the one-on-one, and in one case it was two-on-one care, not enough to provide the care for those entrusted to them. Now that is a very serious situation.
A person came out of an angioplasty and had to go back to the Grace to go back to the cardiac unit. It was closed, there was nobody there to work. They had to hold them, I guess at the Health Sciences, or wherever it was. There is a crisis, I say, in health care here.
Now people are being told, people who have agreed to come to work in a strike, who have agreed to go back on double-time. Do you know that there was a person here who was called and offered to go back on triple-and-a-half time to go to work? That is how desperate things are. One person I think who was sitting in the gallery today said to me during the break: Triple-and-a-half time, can you imagine, to go back to work in the system. No wonder people are overworked or stressed out. Now they are being told, not just in coronary care today at the Health Sciences, but being told on medical and surgical floors, after being stressed out and over-worked all year: You cannot go with your family on a vacation that you planned all year.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, she is calling on them, too, calling on the nurses' union. Collective, I said. Don't you know what collective means? She is asking the nurses' union to be part of a team that is taking collective action. That is right. She said: We are asking them to take collective action to address recruitment and retention.
What do you want the nurses' union to do? Tell the nurses to stay, when they are offered $20,000 more, and $30,000? What do you want them to do, go out and tell them to stay on retention, go out and recruit other nurses? Send them on a mission to the north? That is where they are going. Go to the US and recruit. They are going there now, but the recruiting they are doing is for themselves. It is a job to put them in. That is what they are doing. Now that is insulting, I would say. What power does the nurses' union have to go out and do it when you hold the pen that signs the cheque? You control hiring.
There are a lot of dollars in the system. We do not need all the dollars we are talking about, because you have too many mismanaged dollars in the system. The Atkinson report will tell you that. That is why you, on four occasions publicly, indicated that you will be receiving that report. We have not seen it yet. Because you are afraid that the public will know how bad the system is. That is what you are afraid of. People know, you have not fooled them. You did not fool them and did not get the support of the public on the strike. You certainly did not. By doing that, and by jeopardizing, I say to the minister, her position in there, she has lose the confidence not only of nurses but people in the system to deal effectively with the needs of people in this Province.
I said, Minister, you are a lame duck minister. Maybe the Premier will do something about that, I do not know. I can tell you, it is not working. There is mismanagement. You have failed to address it, and your boards, and then you are trying to accuse me that I do not have the respect. I know many people on the boards. They are good people, hard-working people. Their hands are tied by you and the department. You have not, first of all, kept accountability there. You have neglected that. You are allowing mismanagement in the system. You have to get effective people in the proper positions, and you have to clean up this system and save tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars that can be better utilized in the system to get a result.
You are wasting it. It is like an engine going out of control, and you keep putting more fuel in it. You will never get the result. You have to fix the root of the problem. Do not deal with the result of the problem. You have to deal with the root, the symptoms of the problem, if you are ever going to fix it. It is not much point if somebody has an ailment and you keep giving them medication when you need to do surgery. Sometimes you need to do surgery to correct the problem, and it is not being done.
The system is inefficient. There are so many areas of inefficiency in the system. I've cited them. I did an interview with a t.v. station last week. I did not see it on the air yet, but I mentioned many examples of inefficiencies. I pointed them out. What are they doing to correct them? Nothing. That is what they are doing, nothing to correct many of the inefficiencies in the system. Some things are getting done. I mean all is denial, denial.
The Peninsulas Health Care Corporation, when it was out there, I said: There is equipment not maintained since the spring, and this was fall. Until they went for a defibrillator and it did not work, and I think somebody died in the process. Five hundred pieces of equipment, the maintenance allowed to run out on it. Then the minister stood and said: Oh, I said (inaudible). He is gone. They finally had to get rid of him.
MR. SULLIVAN: No, he is on vacation. I said you will find out if he is on vacation. Where was he? He went on an extended one because they replaced him. Because you didn't do the job that people are appointed to do in the system, and if they are not they are accountable to you, Minister, because you appoint them. That is where my problem is. When you appoint them you take the blame. You let the people elect them and they have to report to the people who elect them. That is where we have a major problem in our health care system to date. There is a lack of accountability and it is chewing up immense dollars in the system.
It is pathetic to think they are offering someone triple-and-a-half time to go to work. People bought vehicles in the last two years out of overtime when you will not put a casual nurse permanent that is working over forty hours a week? It is crazy. It does not make sense, it does not make business sense. It does not make proper sense in caring for the people. There are people going around with beepers and phone calls and they cannot plan. They cannot see their families. On a minute's notice they are expected to get into vehicles. I know people who drove into work who were sent home. People said: We don't need you now. That has happened. It is ridiculous. If you ever ran a business like that you would have gone bankrupt long ago. It is mismanaged again, I will say. It is mismanaged, and who do you blame?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bad ministers.
MR. SULLIVAN: Bad ministers, yes.
When you appoint them, Minister, they have to be accountable to you and you have to take the blame. You cannot be pushing it off and saying: Let's come out and have another little forum now, let's get our people in now and we will deal with it. You had your forum two years ago. What have you done? The situation has gotten worse Minister, since you got your forum. Because you can have all the forums you like. If you do not do something about it and listen to the people that is what is going to happen. You had your chance to talk.
MR. SULLIVAN: Sure you have. You are going to have another public consultation or forum. You are using the media (inaudible). They are not here today. You might not have used the word here today, but I heard it on the public airways. You are talking about another grandiose forum to tell you what the problems are. Do you know what the problems are? If you do not know what the problems are you have not done your job. If you do not know what the problems are right now, after spending your lifetime in the system, talking to people in the system, and you do not know the problem, and you have to go talk to nurses now, (inaudible).
I bet if you called Dr. Parsons in Western and asked: How many more permanent nurses do we need in the system to adequately staff it in care, and he gave you a number, to me, that is all you need to hire nurses. Sister Elizabeth Davis, the same thing, and other boards. How many do we need to adequately do the job? That is who you have to get.
I am sure they are not telling you we have enough nurses. If they are telling you that there is something wrong because I am not hearing it from anybody around the system. I am hearing: We do not have enough permanent nurses. I am hearing: You train critical care nurses, fair numbers, adequate numbers you trained, but they were casual. They took permanent jobs elsewhere. They went out of the Province. Now you don't have them. Other nurses want to become critical care who are permanent, but they are not allowed to go in and do it because: We need you on medicine, we need you on surgery, we need you here and we cannot replace you if you go. You are not allowing that to happen.
What is happening? A person lying for his heart surgery, after waiting six months, is told: Sorry, no surgery today, there are no nurses to care for you when you go through surgery. We cannot do it. That is criminal.
I speak to people. I have e-mails and letters from people who are devastated. One called it death row. Death row, he told me it is. I have a letter from him and he said I can make it public who he is and that he will talk to anybody: That is what I am on, I am on death row. I have a business, I am young, I want to get back to it this year. I cannot get my surgery. I am depending on that business I have and I need to devote time to it. The tourist season is coming up and I cannot do it.
That is the type of cases I'm hearing every single day. You cannot put enough nurses in the system. Cancelling surgery because you cannot have nurses? If you did not have a surgeon, if you did not have a room to operate, if you did not have a room to put him in, I mean, these problems are there.
Now, because you cannot have a nurse to care for them when they come out of surgery, you do not want somebody dying after surgery with no one to care for them - and that came pretty close to happening last week when there were not enough persons to give the normal level of care that we need in our institutions. Add up what you are losing in sick leave because of stress and overwork, and it is enormous, the toll it is taking on the system. It can only get worse, I can tell you, it can only get worse. Overtime levels can only get worse.
MR. SULLIVAN: Leave, we will go on all night.
Overtime levels and so on can only get worse.
Anyway, I want to say it is an insult to go throw it back (inaudible), an insult to move an amendment there. It is something certainly we are not going to support because it is a disgrace. It is an abdication of the responsibility of this minister and this government to deal with the problems out there today. It is not the job of the nurses' union solely to deal with it. You know there is a problem. You should. They know the problem, the minister knows it. We want solutions now and this is going to do nothing to get a solution.
All those in favour of the amendment, `aye'.
All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Smith; the hon. the President of Treasury Board; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Ms Hodder; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Jones; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Sweeney.
CLERK: Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Harris.
Mr. Speaker, twenty-four ayes and ten nays.
All those in favour of the motion, as amended, `aye'.
I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible). Stand up.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, after the vote was taken, the clock showed 5:01 p.m. I do not know if they can call for Division after 5:00 p.m. on Private Members' Day.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Chair have the consent to continue with the vote? It is 5:02 p.m.
This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.