December 2, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 53
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House leave to make an announcement on a death in my district yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SHELLEY: It is not normal to do, I know, under normal circumstance, Mr. Speaker, but today I would like to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, a resident of La Scie, who has probably been known as an legend in the La Scie area, and probably indeed on the entire Bay Verte peninsula.
He reached a milestone. He passed away two days ago, and was born October 11, 1893. That made him 105 years old. He was very well known in the area. Even as lately as this morning I was talking to his two sons. Of course, he has a number of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren. They attribute the long life of Mr. Toms - to Uncle Mac, as he was referred to - as been a content, happy man whose was active right up to his dying days. As a matter of fact, at the age of 100 he took on the hobby of making wooden needles for mending nets and gave them to the fishermen in La Scie and the surrounding area.
He was a very well known gentlemen. As a matter of fact, on his 100th birthday in 1993 I happened to be in the community of La Scie with Mr. Crosbie at the time, and we went to visit him on his birthday, and I had quite the conversation with him then. He certainly has been an inspiration to a lot of people over the years. He was one of these people who you say never had an enemy. He was very well liked, he certainly inspired me as I talked to him and heard stories from him.
Mr. Speaker, I would like today to ask the House to send condolences to his family and to pay tribute to Uncle Mac, Mr. Mac Toms.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House also would like to join in sending condolences to this grand old gentlemen. One hundred and five years. An awful lot of information about this Province has come to an end. He was alive when Newfoundland was an independent nation, he witnessed the Commission of Government, then he saw us go in to Confederation with Canada. From what I understand he kept his faculties right up until within days before he died. It is a great loss to his family, his friends, to the district, and to the Province. We certainly would want to join in sending condolences to the family.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: I am pleased on behalf of my party to add to the remarks of the Member for Baie Verte and the Minister of Justice. It is a very remarkable thing to reach that ripe old age of well beyond what people normally expect to have (inaudible). To have reached 105 years of age and not made an enemy in your life is a remarkable tribute to this man's ability to get along with people and, no doubt, that also contributed to his long life. It is a pleasure to join in the tribute and offer the condolences to the family and friends of this fine gentleman.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have risen in this Legislature on a number of past occasions to inform hon. members of significant ongoing developments in the fishing industry. On these occasions, I have also made repeated references to challenges which the groundfish moratoria have had on individuals and communities throughout the Province. I have also outlined government's vision of the fishery of the future based around professional fish harvesters, private sector investment, and the withdrawal of government subsidies.
All too often, our society is not inclined to view private sector investment in the fishery sector from the same prospective as investments in other sectors of the economy. Yet this investment gives rise to solid employment opportunities in our rural economy. Since the moratorium we have made solid progress in the rebuilding of the fishing industry around new resource opportunities. These opportunities are being developed and are having a profound impact on our provincial economy as evidenced by the fishing industry's export value of approximately $600 million projected in 1998.
We should all be encouraged by the level of private sector investment made in these fisheries opportunities in the past twelve to eighteen months. These investments are giving a new face to the fishing industry - an industry which is internationally competitive, quality conscious and progressive especially in terms of the adoption of new technology and value-added initiatives. Challenges remain, but I have every confidence that the progress made over the past several years, and which continues to be made, will help place the industry on a solid footing for the future.
I want, by way of example, to illustrate the kinds of private sector investment that are being made in the processing sector of the industry. We now have some of the most modern cold water shrimp processing plants in the world on the basis of approximately $60 million in new capital expenditures made by the private sector. I underline "the private sector." In 1999, nine shrimp plants will have the capacity to readily process all available inshore shrimp landings together with industrial shrimp that may be available from the offshore fleet sector. These are located in St. Anthony, Port au Choix, Anchor Point, Black Duck Cove, Clarenville, Port Union, St. Joseph's, Bay de Verde and Old Perlican.
I want to apologize to my friend, Mr. Woodford from Jackson's Arm. There will also be one open in Jackson's Arm, which actually will make ten processing plants in this Province.
These new processing sector investments are not only taking place in the shrimp fishery. Approximately $3 million has now been invested in world-class seal tanning capacity at Catalina and Springdale. Again, we will be competing head to head with our principal competitors and world markets for fully cured and tanned seal furs.
The investment in new species processing opportunities for such species as whelk and sea urchins is also encouraging. Upwards of $1.2 million in new investments have been made in the new processing capacity for these species, thereby further diversifying the range of value-added products produced within the industry.
These investments are complementing the progress being made in other traditional sectors of our fishery. I also note that new investments continue to be made in the crab processing sector. In the past year approximately $8 million to $10 million in plant upgrading, modernization, has been invested by the private sector.
In short, I am happy to report that in excess of $75 million has been invested by the private sector in the processing sector of our fishing industry over the past twelve to eighteen months. In addition, fish harvesters have invested well in excess of $50 million in upgrading and modernizing their vessels. This is clear evidence of a renewed confidence in our fishing industry; an industry which remains the engine of growth in our rural economy; an industry which is generating solid employment opportunities; and, above all, an industry which has further potential to generate new employment and investment opportunities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for his statement prior to the opening of the House. I am not so sure that the last sentence in the first paragraph is correct, when the minister says, `the withdrawal of government subsidies'.
It was only last spring we saw a piece of legislation go through this House where the government of the day put forward government guaranteed loans for fish processors.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is true, I say to the Fisheries Minister. It is true, where government put forward government guaranteed loans for fish processors in this Province. If we are going to get out of the act of subsidizing and paying for processing in this Province, then let's get out of it and allow private business and private industry to take up that slack.
Mr. Speaker, the fishermen of this Province are waiting with bated breath to find out what the fishery of the future might look like. They are waiting for the minister to come out and tell them what kind of fishing gear they will be allowed to use. They are waiting for the minister to come out and tell them if it is going to be hook and line, if it is going to be gill nets, if it is going to be cod traps.
The people in this Province are begging the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to speak out and speak up to allow them to go out and buy bigger boats so they may be able to go out and exercise the harvesting of groundfish and other species in a boat that will provide them and their crew with some degree of comfort and safety.
I do not know why DFO is involved in that whatsoever. It was only this morning a fisherman from Baie Verte came in to see the member and talked to me about his frustrations. All he is asking for - he is not asking for extra licences, he is not asking for extra quota - he is saying: All I want to do is to be allowed to go out and buy or build a bigger boat so I can provide myself and my crew with comfort and safety while out fishing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is time for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to get off fishermen's backs and get out of fishermen's pockets.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. It is very encouraging to see the level of investment increase in the fisheries. The private sector, as is noted by the minister, has made a terrific contribution in the last year or so, signifying great confidence not only in the future of the fishery and the future for rural Newfoundland but also in the ability of the workers of this Province to provide significant added value to the product and increase the value to the people of this Province.
Now we do have a lot of challenges, as the minister said, facing us. One of those challenges is to do something about what is going to happen when the people who have been going through a moratorium since 1992 are now, all of a sudden, off the TAGS program, wanting to get back into the fishery, and yet do not know where they are going to turn. This is the challenge. It has been a long time since people have been talking about the fishery of the future, with lots of questions but no answers, and it is time that we got on to that.
Government has a strong role to play, whether it be in direct subsidies or whether it be in developing innovative programs -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - and we have to hear what they are going to be.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The shrimp fishery, no doubt, and the additional quotas that were announced, have contributed significantly to the economic growth in my area of the Province as well as the Northern Peninsula. That was evident in the last year, not only in the harvesting sector but also in the processing sector as the minister has outlined.
I think also we have to recognize that these plans have to be evenly distributed around the Province, and we in Labrador are working to have a processing facility that will be owned and operated by our own fishermen through the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company.
Hopefully in the next we are going to be able to get this facility moving and get it open so that we can do, as well, full processing of this product on our shores, contributing to the employment of those communities.
I would ask that the minister and all members in this House support that at that time in moving this industry along in Labrador as well, recognizing that these quotas are adjacent to those communities and ensuring that there is separate quota allocations -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: - for those harvesters in Labrador as well.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Operation ONLINE is a not-for-profit corporation led by a volunteer board of directors drawing primarily from the private sector.
The work of Operation ONLINE is funded by the Canada/Newfoundland Agreement on Economic Renewal. The mandate of Operation ONLINE is to provide leadership and investment in information technology as a catalyst for economic renewal and growth in the Province. The establishment of Operation ONLINE represents a new approach by government and industry toward a common goal of industrial growth.
Mr. Speaker, many exciting and innovative projects which have been led by Operation ONLINE have been happening in this Province. For example, the new media competition, health IT project funding, and the IT Supplier Development Initiative. Operation ONLINE works with the private industry and government partners on many initiatives.
This report that I will be tabling on Operation ONLINE highlights several projects, such as the opening of the Digital Animation Studio at the Stephenville campus of the College of the North Atlantic, and the Information Seaway Initiative with the Canadian Centre for Marine Communication.
These are just a few examples of the work Operation ONLINE is undertaking that assists with the growth of our IT sector. In fact, the overall growth rate in employment for the IT sector in Newfoundland and Labrador was 23 per cent for the period of March 1997 to March 1998.
I congratulate Operation ONLINE on their success in their efforts to stimulate growth in our information technology sector. I take this opportunity to express the continuing support of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, for the important work that Operation ONLINE is doing to advance the IT sector, and thus the economy, of our Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I too would like to join in congratulating Operation ONLINE. It appears to be a move in the right direction to attracting industry to this Province. Some of the initiatives that we have seen announced here in this statement today are very positive indeed. So I join with the minister and with all members of the House, I am sure, in congratulating Operation ONLINE for their work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join in offering my support for the activities of Operation ONLINE. We are making a very good start in the IT sector in this Province. We have had terrific exposure with the Softworld '98 Convention just held here recently, but we have to realize that we are not the only ones who are moving forward in this field. I saw some reports out of Halifax indicating they are well ahead of the game as well. So we have a lot of work to be done. We must move with initiatives like this and not assume that the job is done. A start is made, but a lot more work has to be done to make it work.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, today government is tabling legislation in response to the Statutory Review Committee Report of the Workers' Compensation Act entitled Time to Refocus. In conjunction with this, I will also be tabling the 1997 Annual Report of the Workers' Compensation Commission as required under Section 12 of the Act.
Upon receipt of the Statutory Review Report, my department immediately undertook a major review of the recommendations. We consulted with the Workers' Compensation Commission, the Federation of Labour, the Injured Workers' Association, the St. John's Board of Trade, the Employers' Council, and many others.
Mr. Speaker, government has endeavoured throughout this process to provide fair and equitable benefits to injured workers while at the same time ensuring the long-term viability of the workers' compensation system. Through the tabling of this legislation today, government is demonstrating its commitment to a responsive and sustainable workers' compensation system.
Mr. Speaker, government agrees that it is time to refocus. We recognize that our injured workers need increased benefits, but we also acknowledge that our employers are paying the highest assessment premiums in the country. However, it must be fully understood that despite our intention to "refocus", we must not lose sight of the goal of providing a financially stable workers' compensation system.
While progress has been made in reducing the unfunded liability of the Commission, I would remind hon. members that the system still has an unfunded liability of approximately $92 million. Mr. Speaker, we are not out of the woods yet as the system is still vulnerable from a financial perspective, particularly given the state of world markets which affect the Commission's investment portfolio.
In responding to the Statutory Review Report, government has taken a balanced and equitable approach. We recognize that reasonable adjustments to the workers' compensation system could be implemented to better meet the needs of injured workers. Furthermore, we determined that there was some flexibility in the financial position of the Commission to implement many of the recommendations contained in the report and to put more money in the hands of injured workers. We were able to do this while still maintaining our goal of ensuring the unfunded liability is fully addressed by 2012.
Here are some of the key initiatives that are being undertaken as a result of the Statutory Review.
Effective January 1, 1998, government increased benefits for injured workers from 75 per cent to 80 per cent of net earnings for the first 39 weeks of an individual's claim. This was a direct benefit provided immediately to more than 500 short term clients. In addition, every injured worker who had a lost-time claim in 1998 benefited from this change. Based on yearly averages, this change could affect approximately 5,000 workers.
Injured workers in receipt of Canada Pension Plan benefits will receive an increase as a result of the CPP offset being reduced from 80 per cent to 75 per cent of net income. This is a direct benefit to long term clients and will be made retroactive to September 1, 1998.
As well, effective September 1, 1998, survivors will receive a minimum weekly payment of not less than $200, taking into account other survivor benefits such as CPP and employer sponsored pension plans. Furthermore, the Commission is now providing up to $5,000 to survivors to cover burial expenses.
Funding for the Worker's Advisor Office and the Employer Advisor Office will be doubled to $200,000 for each office to provide additional information and support to workers and employers.
There are many other areas where significant changes will occur and will benefit injured workers, such as the following:
Two diseases have been added to the list of industrial diseases - cancer of the larynx and cancer of the esophagus as a result of exposure to metal working fluids;
Health care entitlement will be determined in consultation with the treating physician and the health care system. Specialists reports will take priority over reports of general practitioners or occupational therapists; however, recommendations of the health care team will be considered;
Time frames associated with the appeal process, both external and internal, are being reduced from six months to three months. I am pleased to note that the Commission and the Workers' Compensation Review Division are already achieving this target; and,
Given the magnitude and complexity of the Workers' Compensation system and its expanded mandate in education and prevention, the Board of Directors will be expanded to include additional representation from employees, employers and the general public.
Government acknowledges that the process known as deeming is controversial and problematic for injured workers. Therefore, we established an ad hoc committee on deeming with representation from the Federation of Labour, the Injured Workers' Association, the Employers Council, the Commission and my department. The work of this committee resulted in some changes to the deeming process.
Yet there remains a need to review the deeming process even further. Therefore, I have directed that this process be monitored and assessed for one year by a sub-committee of the expanded Board of Directors. That committee is to report to me at the conclusion of that review. I am aware that the framework for this review has been developed in consultation with stakeholders.
The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission has an excellent record in terms of collecting assessments from employers. Less than 1 per cent of assessments had to be written-off due to bankruptcies and business closures. Nevertheless, the ability of the Commission to collect arrears will be strengthened even further by making directors of companies liable for unpaid assessments and by broadening the Commission's ability to seize assets.
Government's response to the Statutory Review of the Workers' Compensation System addresses many of the concerns of injured workers without placing the financial integrity of the system in jeopardy. This system exists for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I believe that we have taken the necessary steps to ensure an equitable balance exists between the needs of injured workers and the employers of the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement before coming to the House today. I can only say, Minister, that I am also in receipt of a press release by the injured workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure you have seen that, and I am sure officials of your department have probably had the opportunity to review it. I think they point out quite clearly in here that the unfunded liability for workers compensation can actually be looked after by the year 2005 and not 2012. I think there is room here to certainly go back and review the figures that are presented.
Let's not kid ourselves here. The two biggest things that were in the report and what the government were asked to look at were the deeming process - and I am not so sure that we have covered that up by now appointing a special committee -, as well as the clawback on Canada Pension.
I believe Minister that these recommendations should be implemented today so that the injured workers of the Province of Newfoundland can be treated with respect and dignity and they can be given the opportunity to lead a life, and to live a life which they have the right to live as well as anybody in this House, or anybody outside of this House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister and members will know that the Statutory Review Committee Report recommended to refocus the operations of the Workers' Compensation Commission. What they wanted to do was restore some of the benefits that had been taken away to improve the health of the fund. It was done at the expense of benefits to injured workers. They recommended that the CPP offset be reduced to 50 per cent because workers were actually paying for that through their payroll deductions and now were having it reduced from their workers' compensation benefits.
The minister and the government have failed to do that. They have failed to restore the benefits to where they should be. The health of the fund was on the mind of the Statutory Review Committee and they took that into consideration when they made the recommendations that they did. The government has failed to look after injured workers properly, they have failed to follow the recommendations of this Committee, and they have failed injured workers in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apprise the House of certain facts relating to a law suit brought against government by Mr. John Woodrow. As hon. members may recall, Mr. Woodrow was head of the Paralegal Institute, a private college whose license was revoked by government in 1998.
As a result of this, Mr. Woodrow sued government for $90 million. On November 24, at Mr. Woodrow's request, Mr. Harold Porter, a lawyer with the Department of Justice who was defending the lawsuit, met with Mr. Woodrow. At that meeting Mr. Woodrow alleged that he had paid bribes to officials to acquire the license for the Paralegal Institute. In response, Mr. Porter told Mr. Woodrow that he should place any such matters in the hands of the police. Mr. Porter reported Mr. Woodrow's statement to the Deputy Minister of Justice, Ms Lynn Spracklin, who on November 25, one day later, referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Colin Flynn. Mr. Flynn in turn referred the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On November 27 Mr. Woodrow requested, and was granted leave by the Supreme Court, to discontinue his lawsuit against government.
Today, a CBC journalist contacted Mr. Beaton Tulk, the Government House Leader, indicating that she had been approached by Mr. Woodrow with various allegations concerning members of his staff. Mr. Tulk brought these matters to my attention this morning. I was then apprised upon referring the question to the Department of Justice of the statements made by Mr. Woodrow on November 24 and that the matter had been referred to the RCMP.
Mr. Tulk, in order to ensure that there was no question concerning his conduct, has asked me today to accept his resignation pending these matters being thoroughly examined. With reluctance I accepted his resignation. I have asked the Commissioner for Members' Interest, Mr. Bob Jenkins, to look at whether Mr. Tulk or any member of his staff contravened the Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Jenkins, of course, is an officer of this House and is able to give an impartial examination of the facts.
As well, the matter remains before the RCMP. Anyone who has information that might relate to this matter should be directly in contact with the RCMP.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say on my own behalf, and I know on behalf of members on this side of the House, and may I dare to say I suspect on members as well on the other side of the House, that I have every respect for and confidence in Mr. Tulk. I look forward to a thorough examinations of these allegations, and I look forward to Mr. Tulk's return to Cabinet when these matters have been examined.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In light of this report today, I guess, it is always with regret that one has to make a statement that a minister has stepped aside. There are two issues at stake here. One is the investigation by the RCMP into allegations that have been brought forward. We certainly on this side of the House are strong believers in due process. Let the investigation take its course in an open and straightforward manner. Any allegations then would be either put to rest (inaudible), or appropriate action would be taken.
With reference to the former minister today, I might add that I think it is appropriate action to take, to step aside while such an investigation is going on. Certainly the second aspect are the conflict of interest guidelines which are distinct and very clear in what a minister of the Crown, and really what any private member here, can do. It is appropriate.
I am sure Mr. Jenkins will look at the conflicts of interest from that perspective too and render his judgement. We will certainly agree with giving a course of time to make sure that the proper investigations are carried out to ensure that this matter is put to rest one way or another.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all let me say that it is highly appropriate that the minister has taken the high road here and said: I should step aside until this has been looked after, rather than face a barrage of highly political action in this House, which would be bound to result. It is our duty to look at these things. I think the minister has done the quite appropriate thing to step aside to allow an independent inquiry into what has happened.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: We saw what happened federally when the minister didn't take the high road in the beginning with Minister Scott. This is quite an appropriate thing to do and I want to commend the minister for doing that.
Obviously, the granting of this license was a highly politically event in this House and ought to thoroughly reviewed. Of course, the allegations were not being made -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - by this individual.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I look forward to a full and thorough investigation of all the allegations. I hope anyone who has information can come forward so that the air is cleared and that the public will know exactly what happened.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: The minister's role, if any -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: If I may have leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: The minister's role, if any, should be given full public light of day. I certainly look forward to the minister being vindicated based on the facts that unfold. If the minister is making full availability of his knowledge and his information, then that is the way it should be
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Before His Honour calls question period, I think I would request, it being Private Members' Day, that there be sufficient time to carry out the thirty minute question period, in light of using the time with ministerial statements.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The consolidation of hospitals in the St. John's region was originally slated to cost about $70 million. That figure was revised upward in 1996 to $100 million. At the annual general meeting of the Health Care Corporation in response to my questions, the Health Care Corporation stated that they would borrow the money themselves, $100 million, and they would repay that over a twenty-year period, at which time there would be $10 million to go toward the debt and $10 million re-invested into health care to remain within the system.
Last year we were informed that the cost had now risen to $130 million. Just recently we have heard of another $5 million, so it is up to $135 million. Now this $135 million does not include the cost of purchasing St. Clair's. That was $6.5 million, financed over twenty years, for a total cost of $15 million. There was another $4.765 million to purchase the Grace, financed over six years, for a total cost of $6.88 million.
I want to ask the minister now: Will she tell us if there are actually going to be any savings at all put into health care because of this restructuring or will we be spending this money entirely on bricks and mortar?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I discussed last year in the previous session when these questions were asked, the $100 million was increased to $130 million when other additions of renovations were identified as being necessary so that the Health Care Corporation could operate efficiently. Namely, there was increased money allocated for cardiovascular surgery as the member opposite, I am sure, would remember. In addition to that there was also money for renovations to St. Clair's and the Health Sciences to accommodate the changes that would be required. In addition to that there was a parking garage.
Most recently the CEO has made the information known that the amount now would go up from $130 million to $135 million. That extra money has not been approved at this point by Cabinet. We have been made aware of that amount of money and that will be something we will be looking at addressing when we address our financial review. That information was made available based on the fact that the capital was for building only and not for necessary equipment that would be necessary in a new facility.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do believe there will be money available to service this debt, because even today as we speak there are still parts of the Corporation's plan that have not been implemented. They will be implemented over time, for example with respect to the Grace and the kitchens, et cetera.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: In addition to the $135 million that has now been made public up to last week, will the minister confirm that there is now another $20 million that is going to be needed for redevelopment to furnish these new facilities that was not originally stated in the public forum?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I have previously alluded, the amount of money that was allocated in the $130 million was very clearly articulated through renovations that were required to St. Clair's and the Health Sciences, to the cardiovascular surgery at the Health Sciences, and to the parking garage. The amount of equipment that is required has not been allocated, except in this $5 million.
My understanding at this point in terms of what would be required is that we have a whole range of issues yet to deal with. Because as members of this House probably know, as we approach the year 2000 there will be a significant amount of equipment right across this Province that will have to be dealt with, because the computer chip will not provide the capacity to do the type of investigative analysis and other types of radiology reporting that may be necessary.
So, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the amount of money that would be used for capital or required for capital, be it in the Health Care Corporation of St. John's or throughout the Province, I would expect it would be a significant amount of money. We do have a provincial coordinator put in place to look at the implications of the year 2000. We will have a much better idea as that analysis is completed not only what the Health Care Corporation would require in St. John's, but the system throughout our Province.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister may not be aware, but the $135 million is not including, I might add - and this extra $20 million I just referred to that - I have a copy of a five-year plan that is going to count on another $20 million to refurbish those facilities. It is in under redevelopment for equipment and furnishings to put in these new buildings. I have a five-year plan. I am sure the minister, if she has not seen it, should see it very quickly.
In 1999-2000, $11 million, and 2000-2001, another $9 million. That is $20 million more on top of the $135 million that is already announced there. I ask the minister: Would she confirm that? If she does not have a copy, I will give her a copy of this. This is in addition, Minister. That is only the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. That is in addition to the $15 million that went into departments, and in addition to the $50 million needed in clinical programs, I might add to the minister, over the next five years.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I believe the hon. member has asked his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I have asked my question? Okay, I have asked it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know the minister is so perplexed I will have to get to the question again. She just did not understand the question. I asked her quite simply: Will the minister now admit she was not aware of this $20 million of new money, besides the $135 million that was alluded to and stated by the Health Care Corporation last week?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite has probably heard the CEO - I am sure he listens attentively to each of the words that she puts forward in the media and in other forms to the information around the requirements that are necessary for the new facility. I would say that we know, when you build a new facility, there will be a number of pieces of equipment and other types of capital that would be required for new procedures requiring different types of equipment.
However, we have also heard from the Health Care Corporation that much of this is a wish list. They know we have a capital budget in our Province of $4.5 million that we have to use throughout the whole Province. Mr. Speaker, we are very much looking forward to the allocations that will come forward from the federal government with respect to CHST funding that will help us address not only this issue, but other issues throughout the Province with respect to health care.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister answered my question. She doesn't have a clue about this $20 million, she doesn't know anything about it. She should find out what is going on.
When you add up the $135 million that the minister knows about, when you add up the $20 million that I just told her about, when you add up the $11 million that was needed to purchase the hospitals - not counting financing; that is going to come to over $21 million -, when you add the cost associated with closing the Grace Hospital and the Janeway Hospital that have not occurred yet, the cost of moving that has not been identified yet, the math simply does not add up for savings in the system, I say to the minister.
In light of all these new costs here, can the minister stand in her place today and tell us that this reorganization in the hospitals is actually going to put money back into health care like the minister said, like the Health Care Corporation said in the beginning? Can you stand and tell us that today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is trying to tell me that operating six separate facilities is cheaper than operating one Health Care Corporation with the type of changes made, I am not going to admit that. Because I am sure it makes good sense when you look at the reorganization and restructuring. If you read what the Auditor General had to say about the abilities of this cooperation to make it work, I am not going to admit that.
I readily admit that this Province desperately needs more money for health care. We have been lobbying extensively, as has our Premier, and other health ministers and premiers right across the country, for more money from Ottawa.
Yes, our Province needs more money for health care, not only in St. John's but right throughout the Province. We look forward to getting that, Mr. Speaker, and we are committed to putting it back into health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since I came here to the House we have been in transition. I wish we would come out of transition, I say to the minister, and get something done in health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister this. The minister has already indicated, and it is public knowledge, the Health Care Corporation has confirmed that government has given permission to health care to borrowed $100 million. The new identified costs - the $35 million they admit, the $20 million I mentioned today and I will confirm it with a five-year plan for the Health Care Corporation, if you want a copy, minister - along with those other additional costs I alluded to, who is going to borrow the extra $65 million or more, of which $55 million - that is clearly admitted now by the Corporation - who is going to borrow the rest of that? Will it be the Health Care Corporation or is it going to be borrowed directly by our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if anyone has been in transition in this House, it is the member opposite. It has not been the health care system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear in admitting publicly in a number of forums that this Province is in desperate need for health care funding. We have managed to maintain services in this Province and improve in our direction through our Strategic Social Plan and other issues around prevention and early intervention, recognizing that health care is more than hospitals.
I will admit again here in the House today that we do need more money from the federal government to provide the services required in this Province and also to help offset the capital projects that we have undertaken in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, your department and the Health Care Corporation have said from day one that when we reorganize the hospitals in the St. John's region there will be $20 million in savings because of efficiencies in the system; $20 million in efficiencies because of consolidation. Now this, of course, was not including deductions for capital expenditure, other costs identified, costs I mentioned here today, and other future costs that have not been identified.
I want to ask the minister if her department has identified, and the Health Care Corporation - and they have repeatedly said that for the last few years, at least the last two-and-a-half years - can you provide a list to me of this $20 million that was identified and can be measured as savings because of reorganization? In other words: Have you done your homework and identified these? And will you table this list in the House so we can see where the savings are going to be?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on any number of occasions here in this House of Assembly, all the savings that have been identified have not yet been achieved, because there are still efficiencies to be achieved through the closure of the Grace Hospital and other measures.
Now, I am sure the member opposite availed of every opportunity to ask Sister Elizabeth Davis about the details, I understand, through the Public Accounts Committee. There was a full and thorough briefing, and questions were asked about this whole issue. I will say that, yes, there are still plans to allocate savings to pay off the cost of the capital.
With respect to our need for more money, the need is very clear. With respect to how we operate, we operate specifically with operational funds to provide those services, and we do have another budget for our capital. I have identified the needs for capital throughout the Province and I know that the Health Care Corporation have even increased needs for capital because of a new facility and other needs around the year 2000.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have one question for the Minister of Finance, and it is with respect to the public service pension issue from yesterday.
In view, Minister, of yesterday's protest, in view of the many stories that we have heard from public service pensioners, and in view of the comments that the minister made last night on a TV telecast - and I am quoting, "Well, I think we'd consider it but it obviously means that we might have to cut back somewhere else. We only have a certain amount of money available and if that's the choice then fine, we'd be prepared to look at it (inaudible) and maybe do something less than full indexing." So, it appears, Mr. Minister, that the window of opportunity has been left open to some extent.
Upon reflection, I would ask you: Is there a possibility that you can sit down with representatives of the Public Service Pensioners' Association with a view to addressing their concerns?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have always said, consistently, that the government would be prepared to consider at the bargaining table an indexing plan for our pensions. What they have been opposed to is to take out of taxpayers' dollars an amount to give a gratuity to retired government employees. Now, as recently as the last couple of days, I think yesterday, CUPE came out and said they were not interested. I think Austin Deir of NAPE has said yes, he would be prepared to work with us on it.
Let's not forget that the magnitude of doing this is very expensive, if you do the whole thing. Now, we might look at some plan but it has to be funded. We cannot afford to take on a liability of tens of millions of dollars in pension plans that are right now just beginning to maybe become more stable. It is something we would consider at the bargaining table, but government only has so much money.
If employees choose to have an index pension plan and it is one that we can all afford, both from the employees' and government's point of view, we would consider it and we are prepared to sit down and discuss it with the unions, but we only have a certain amount of money. We just agreed to a 2 per cent pay increase, and frankly we could not have indexing plus a pay increase.
People, when they choose to work for government, have to make a choice about what benefits they want, either now or later, and that is something that we are prepared to discuss.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour.
The Argentia site, according to officials with your department, is the only site in the Province that government has its eyes on to accommodate a toxic dump site for the disposal of waste from the former Newfoundland Hardwoods site across the provinces. It would cost the taxpayers of this Province over a quarter of a million dollars to dump the toxic waste at the Argentia site. It would cost over three-quarters of a million dollars to ship the toxic waste outside the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Has government finalized the decision as to what to do with this toxic waste?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, the site that is being constructed or supposed to be constructed in Argentia is going to be done by Public Works Canada. We are hoping that they would allow us to take the toxins, the creosote and the asphalt type of waste, into their particular site but we have not gotten an indication that they are allowing us to do that yet.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, it appears as though there is nothing yet finalized on this. I ask the minister: Why is it that government waited such a long period of time and still has not made a decision as to what to do with this toxic waste?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, this waste, which is primarily creosote and asphalt type of waste, is solid in the barrels, in very solid form, and has no chance of leaking. So therefore, in that sense, it is not a hazard to the environment and we can wait an appropriate time until we can work out something hopefully with the Department of Public Works to address the problem.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Could the problem of dealing with this toxic waste have been avoided if the materials had been taken care of in a proper fashion prior to crystallizing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member a few moments ago, that particular waste that is now on site out at the hardwood centre is properly contained. It is in solid form and is of no particular harm to the environment at this time. When we are able to work out a particular plan with Public Works Canada, then we will address it at that particular time.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again to carefully listen to this question: Could the problem of dealing with this toxic waste have been avoided if the materials were properly disposed of or looked after prior to crystallizing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: I want the hon. member to listen very attentively as well to the answer that I gave him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: The material that is in these particular tanks and barrels, that are properly contained, are not endangering the environment. When we have an opportunity to work with Public Works Canada to properly dispose of it, we will do that at that particular time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
Madam Minister, there are approximately fifty cabin owners on the railway stretch between Clarenville and the Goobies area, in that stretch of approximately 10 kilometres from the Trans-Canada Highway. One individual bought a cabin two years ago and before he bought the cabin he went to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and asked, would there be any problems with him purchasing a cabin in that area. Recently they have been told that they cannot travel the old railway track - have been told by wardens that they cannot travel the track with their vehicles.
I ask the minister: How does she expect those people to get to their cabins, especially in light of the fact that they asked permission before they even bought the cabins?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any permission was given by anyone that they could access their cabin by vehicle before they bought these cabins, and I would like to see the documentation of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS KELLY: I would also like to point out that this is a provincial park and that in the past year it is also a part of our national T'Railway system. In this past year we have allowed in this Province - as I understand it, it is not in other provinces - we have allowed snowmobile access and ATV access.
We are now meeting with cabin owners and associations all across the T'Railway system because there are hundreds of cabins on the T'Railway that have this difficulty.
I have been meeting with Government Services and Lands and other officials in government to find out: Are there ways we could have alternate access to some of the large groupings of cabins that are there?
The problem right now is being studied by several government departments, and I hope to make a statement about it in the upcoming months.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Province is being studied to death. It will soon be time to do something.
With respect to the permission given, one individual in particular went to the department and told them that they were going to buy this cabin; would the Department of Tourism have any problem with them travelling over that section of the track? They were told no, it would not be a problem.
My question to you is this: Would the department and yourself consider basically giving these people who have these cabins, who have invested money before the T'Railway came into being, some kind of special permit to travel with their vehicles to their cabins?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, such initiatives are under consideration. I would like to speak to you afterwards so you could give me the name of the person who was given this permission from my department, so I can investigate it further.
I have to say to you that the information is being accumulated about the number of cabins that are on the T'Railway or the number of people who need access from the T'Railway to get to their cabins that are off the T'Railway in the back country.
My understanding is that there are hundreds and maybe even thousands. If the numbers are that high, and they all need access by vehicle, we have to consider whether this will stay as a part of the national T'Railway, whether we will keep it as a provincial park, or whether in fact it will become a roadway and I will have to de-proclaim it as a provincial park; because it cannot be all things. It is a very difficult situation and one that we have under active consideration right now.
I have been out to various parts of the Province looking at it. As a matter of fact, I spent a day on the Gaff Topsails with the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans looking at that area of the Province because it is even a more difficult problem in that area.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: This is more a point of clarification than a question. Basically the permission was more - when they went to the department they asked if there would be a problem and they were told there would be no problem.
I would ask the minister this: Would these individuals who did go to the department, basically if they are refused permission to travel over the track after going to the department, would they now have a legal case against the department if they are actually refused?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I will have to look into the details of this. I certainly cannot stand in this House and say to you that they would have a legal case. I would have to look at the details and we would have to consult with the Department of Justice after we review the details and I have all of the details.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
As we know, the nature and makeup of family has undergone a dramatic change in the past decade. It is now commonplace to have a variety of relationships which are seen as family - not the traditional father, mother, children, et cetera - but the way in which assistance is determined remains the same, which often leads to inappropriate assessment of need. I ask the minister: Is she considering any change to the manner in which eligibility is determined?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House are probably aware, for the past year-and-a-half the department has been engaged in a significant process of trying to reform our approach to income support. We recognize that not only is the nature of family units changing in our society today; the nature of our society as a whole is changing, and the nature of employment is changing.
With that in mind, we have started a major and very comprehensive planning process. We have formed various working groups that include a number of stakeholders, including our clients, including a number of advocacy groups, and including various departments which have responsibility that overlaps in this area.
It is a major undertaking. It will take some time to completely change our system and introduce the kind of changes that we will plan.
As we indicated in the House last year, we anticipate that these changes and reforms will be in place within the next two-and-a-half years but it will take a considerable length of time to ensure that the kind of reforms that we make here are supportive of encouraging people towards employment and making sure that we encourage self-reliance through this whole process of providing social assistance.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Single parents often have considerable difficulty with income assistance once they begin a relationship with another adult, and many times income assistance is eliminated or reduced, based upon what is perceived as a common-law relationship.
Will the minister agree to change the procedure in which these cases will see income assistance continue until the appeal process is completed? In other words, people are cut off their assistance until after the appeal which puts the single mom or single dad and their children in great hardship.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and proud of the kinds of changes that we have already introduced in the area of supports to single parents. This is one area that we have focused on in this year's budget to try and introduce changes even in advance of the larger social assistance reforms.
To give you some example, we have this year initiated a partnership arrangement with the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador where they have sponsored an employment program with single parents to try and assist them in moving off social assistance. We have provided an earned income supplement to people who are on that program to help them be able to leave the system. I am particularly pleased with the results that we have seen in that program.
For the information of members of the House, up to October, out of thirty-one participants who had taken part in this program, over half of them are now on employment and actually working and self-reliant, and those are tremendously positive results.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: We have, in addition to these of course, introduced other changes such as the increase in private child care expenses for single parent families.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.
MS BETTNEY: I will mention one other in concluding and that is, of course, the extension of the drug card benefits.
This government is taking significant measures to try and assist single parent families in making their way towards employment and self-reliance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: I would say to the minister, all of these initiatives are great but the question is, when a single mom takes a partner into the house or is determined to be living in a common-law relationship, whether she is or is not living in a common-law relationship, many times her assistance is reduced or suspended altogether.
What I am asking the minister is: In these cases, can the assistance continue until the appeal process is finished so as not to cause hardship to the single parent and the children who are involved in this relationship?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in all of the cases - and there are a considerable number of cases, of course, of families who are on social assistance - there are many, many levels of appeal to ensure that the actual determination that is being made by our staff is an accurate one.
The first one, of course, starts at the level of the financial assistance officer and then it proceeds through the district manager. There can a service review appeal that also takes place at the district level, and of course ultimately there can also be an independent appeal through the appeal board.
Through all of this process there is a fair bit of attention, a high degree of attention, paid to the accuracy of the information and ensuring -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to conclude her answer quickly.
MS BETTNEY: - that we make the proper decisions in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The other day I introduced a private member's resolution with respect to the Auditor General having full access to Memorial University and being able to do a full audit at MUN. I do not think it is necessary to basically get into all of the WHEREAS of the resolution to private members.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: It is already on record, but I -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want me to read it? You do?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, read it into the record.
MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I will read the full private member's resolution. It is already in Hansard, I say to the members, but some people want to hear it; therefore I will read it.
WHEREAS pursuant to the Section 38 of the Memorial University Act as amended in 1993, and the Auditor General Act, the University is required to give the Auditor General access to all books, accounts and records of the University; and
WHEREAS the University since 1992 has repeatedly refused to give the Auditor General access to all books, accounts and records to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law; and
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruled on March 11, 1993, that the Auditor General Act imposes on the University an obligation to give the Auditor General access to all of its books, accounts and records, and that the University has not fulfilled this obligation, and that the only remedy available to the Auditor General under existing law is to report to the House of Assembly that the University has denied the Auditor General full access; and
WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who provide enormous amounts of funding annually to the University from the public treasury, expect and demand accountability for the expenditure by the University of that money; and
WHEREAS it is appropriate that the Auditor General as the chief auditor in this Province of publicly-funded institutions and as an independent arm of the Legislature which votes the funding for Memorial University should have access to all books, accounts and records of the University; and
WHEREAS imposing on the University the demand that the Auditor General must have access to all of its books, accounts and records is reasonable and does not compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the University;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take whatever action is necessary, including legislative action if deemed appropriate, to ensure that the University, without further delay and promptly whenever requested, effectively gives the Auditor General full access to all books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law.
There it is, I say to the Premier. That is the wording. I do not know if that is the first time you heard it. It probably is.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) this morning.
MR. J. BYRNE: You read it carefully this morning. I appreciate you talking the time to read it, I say to the Premier, and I hope you support it. The Premier supports every word, and I appreciate that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I have a lot to say on this. I cannot close debate right now. I have a few words to say and give the reasoning why we want this piece of legislation, this private member's resolution, approved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) full story.
MR. J. BYRNE: I hope the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board certainly sees it within his power to bring in legislation in this sitting of the House to allow the Auditor General to have full access to the books, Mr. Speaker.
Back in June of 1993, the previous Premier and the previous Administration - we have members on that side of the House singing out full support for this private member's resolution - voted to take away some of the authority of the Auditor General in going in.
What we have here is: Memorial University receives from this Administration, from government, over $100 million - public funds - and they have to be held accountable for where that money is spent.
There are members on the other side who want this rushed through the House of Assembly. I really do not know why yet, but I am sure I will find out in due course.
The major change in that legislation was this: The president and certain other employees of Memorial University cannot be called before the Public Accounts Committee. We can call the Premier of the Province, we can call the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the Minister of Mines and Energy, any of the ministers, before the Public Accounts Committee, but there are certain individuals at Memorial University who cannot be called before the Public Accounts Committee.
That in itself is not full accountability; because oftentimes when the Public Accounts Committee is having hearings it is necessary to call the chief administrators, and what have you, of any organization. Memorial University is certainly an organization which takes a lot of money - over $100 million - and we, as elected officials in this House of Assembly, should have the authority to have everything put before the Public Accounts Committee.
As I understand, back in 1994 I believe it was, the Auditor General felt that the accountability was not adequate from Memorial University. It is my understanding that the Department of Education, which is supposed to be responsible for Memorial University and accountability, has no formula policies or procedures in place to ensure that we have proper supervision, control and direction of all matters relating to the university. That is supposed to be provided under the Department of Education act, but the department does not have those policies and procedures in place - which is something that the Department of Education should have a serious look at. That is why I want the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to bring in some legislation to give the Auditor General direct, certain, definable, authority within the Memorial University Act, or the Auditor General Act, to have full access to the books.
Also, back in 1993 and 1994, the university did not submit to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the report that was required under the Memorial University Act. If they didn't get reports in 1993 and 1994, we still do not know what went on with the funds at that time, so that is something that needs to be looked at.
Also, as I said earlier, funding exceeds $100 million for MUN each year and there has been no reconciliation between the annual grant and the actual expenditure. I think the president of MUN has a concern that the integrity of Memorial University with respect to certain courses and so on would be put in jeopardy if the Auditor General went in; but that is not what we are asking for. I do not think the Auditor General has any inclination, at this point in time, to do that. I do not even know if she has the staff to be able to do that. All we are asking is that when the Auditor General goes to Memorial University - just like if she went to the Western Memorial Health Care Corporation, or if she went to the St. John' Health Care Corporation - that she have full access to the books.
The argument that is put back from the university is that she has access to the financial statements. The financial statements are certainly not as complete as a legislative audit which the Auditor General would do.
Also, in the past, the Auditor General has requested minutes of the Board of Regents, the management committee, and the audit committee. I do not think she has received those. To do a complete and legislative audit of the workings and the goings-on at Memorial University, she has to have access to these records.
I do not see the Auditor General, or any Auditor General, asking for information they do not need. That is something this Administration needs to look at. Just to say that she has access or copies of reports or financial statements is not sufficient in the eyes of the Auditor General. Personally speaking, I do not think there is enough information given to do a complete review.
Also, if the entity that is being audited can decide on what the auditor gets - what reports they get, or what financial statements they get - then it can hardly be considered a complete and full audit. Not to put words in the mouth of the Auditor General or the Auditor General's office, but I think that is where the Auditor General is coming from.
Also, the role of the university in relation to the committees of the House: As I said earlier, section 38.2 of the Memorial University Act requires the committee to conduct its examination through the Minister of Education.
I said earlier that the chancellor of the university, the president, the chairperson of the board, the vice-president, other officers and employees of the university, are not compelled to appear as witnesses before the committee of the House; whereas, as I said earlier, the Premier and the other ministers are. I think that is not right, correct, or proper in any stretch of the imagination.
Memorial University has its own auditors. The financial statements of the university, for the sole purpose of expressing an opinion on these financial statements - that is what the auditors do. They just look at the financial statements. They do not look at the overall picture in respect to the legislative audits, as I mentioned earlier. It is a completely different type -
A legislative audit would look at the management systems and practices and the budget process, and would look at travel policies, compensation practices. They would look at the use of vehicles and all of those sorts of things. If Memorial University brings in their financial people or the auditors, they would just look at the money spent, balance it out, and that would be it. With respect to a legislative audit, there hasn't been one done, I think, from what I can understand - it is my belief that the Auditor General has been stymied with respect to doing a full and complete legislative audit of Memorial University.
I sincerely hope, I really do, that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, as I mentioned earlier, does bring in legislation in this sitting of the House that would make it quite clear, the full authority of the Auditor General's office with respect to Memorial University. From what I can gather in speaking to various ministers and members on the other side of the House, they fully support that idea; so I don't see any reason why they would not bring in a new bill to the House to give the authority back to the Auditor General.
Also, back in 1993, from what I understand, Justice Noel made a decision and stated: The Auditor General has attempted to exercise her powers and duties under the act, but the defendant has refused to cooperate. Section 17 of the act imposed an obligation under the University which is not fulfilled.
That was back in 1993. All I want to do, as do members here, is to ensure that there would be no doubt in what the Auditor General can do, whoever he or she may be.
Also, I think there is some concern with respect to value-for-money auditing. I do not think that is within what the Auditor General's office would want to look at. They may want to look at it, but I do not know if they have the staff to do it. As I said earlier, it is just the same as going in to the Health Care Corporation and looking at the Health Care Corporation or the Western Memorial Health Care Corporation, or any entity that the Auditor General has the authority to look at.
I do not know if I need to say much more than that at this point in time. I still have a few minutes left. I am almost cluing up, actually, because I have said pretty well what I want to say. I do not want to get up again and repeat.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what else?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am going to sit down. I am going to clue up my few introductory words and I may, depending on what the Minister of Education says, have another few.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by the Member for Cape St. Francis with respect to the Auditor General's access to Memorial University of Newfoundland.
In doing so, I want to talk about the importance of the autonomy of a university and the role of academic freedom essential to the existence of a university. A university traditionally and historically is a community of scholars who have the right and the duty to act on the basis of a principle known as academic freedom without being subjected to the influences, political or otherwise, that might bear down upon them. There is a question here that has to be discussed and raised as to whether or not academic freedom as we know it is threatened by this resolution.
I recall many years ago members of this House seeking to question the expenditures by Memorial University. Not necessarily expenditures that might be regarded as frivolous, in the sense of expenditures on a particular activity - whether they spend money on art or whether they spend money on redecorating certain buildings or whatever -, but questions as to whether or not particular course offerings are worthwhile or should be continued. This is the kind of questioning and the kind of political interference that would be totally opposed and in opposition to the notion of academic freedom, and the independence and autonomy of a university.
We know the Auditor General is confined by his or her own act, in this case. The act defines what the powers of the Auditor General are. This Auditor General I believe, and the previous Auditor General, have been interested in increasing the mandate of the Auditor General to undertake what I believe is known as value auditing: whether or not the expenditures by government and government agencies are matched by value for money.
In that area, if the Auditor General is going to have the right to decide whether the philosophy department of Memorial University, the social work department, or the history department, is making an expenditure of funds that she considers worth the money, then that would be an enormous threat to the autonomy of a university. It is not appropriate for this Legislature to decide, or for the Public Accounts Committee to decide, or for the Auditor General to decide, whether or not a particular program, a particular course offering, a particular area of scholarly endeavour, ought to be pursued. That is something for the University to decide. That is something the University must always decide if we are to have a university that is truly worthy of the name, and involves the independence of a university, independence of scholarly activity that must be part of our society if we are going to call ourselves civilized. We do not want the University to be dictated to. We don't want their course offerings or what they undertake by way of research to be dictated by this Legislature.
On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate for members of the public and members of this House to have an opinion about what the University may or may not be doing, or whether or not the University is fulfilling its mandate. At the same time, the notion of this House or a committee of this House, or even the Auditor General, attempting to dictate to the University what courses to be offered, what courses to be discussed, well, if that is going to be the consequence of this motion I am opposed to it totally.
What this motion says at the end is that "the Auditor General will have full access to all books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law." That law as it currently stands does not give the Auditor General power to undertake value auditing. The current law does not give the Auditor General the power to do that. The current legislation does not give the Auditor General that authority. If that legislation were ever to change, if the powers of the Auditor General were ever to be changed by this government, by a future government or by any government, those powers would threaten the autonomy of our University. If there was value auditing put in, that would threaten.
If the general law of the Auditor General's Act, which defines what the authority of the Auditor General is, were to change to include value auditing, which I think the Auditor General of Canada has, the federal Auditor General has the right to do that - it seems to be a trend in some provinces; I understand in Prince Edward Island the Auditor General has the authority to undertake value auditing of the University of Prince Edward Island - that is something I would fight tooth and nail, and would never agree with the autonomy of the University being threatened in that way.
I say that it is certainly legitimate for the Auditor General to have the right and ability to assess whether or not the expenditure of significant public funds, in excess of $100 million annually, are expended in accordance with proper administrative procedures, backed by policies, properly looked after, properly audited. That is an appropriate thing. The Auditor General should have the ability to do a proper auditor of the accounts of Memorial University.
Therefore, with that qualification, with that concern, with that red flag that I wish to wave and record and have noticed for Hansard, for the record, and for the protection of the autonomy of the University, let it not be said that this House of Assembly, in passing this resolution, is intending or attempting to, does not wish to and will not threaten the autonomy of Memorial University in any way.
Yet, at the same time, there is financial accountability of public funds which is a responsibility of this government, this House of Assembly, and the Auditor General. I hope and I know that despite the occasional interest in making political hay in the Public Accounts Committee, whether it be Opposition or government members to a University official or any government official, I think if anybody attempts to use that Public Accounts Committee or use these powers to threaten the autonomy of the University then I think we might have to have another look at this to see how the University's academic freedom and autonomy can be protected.
I think that is the singular most important factor in this issue here. We do have a significant public funds, we know there is a private audit done, but it does not have the same degree of public scrutiny as other public expenditures.
The University is not an agency of government in the way that Hydro is a public corporation and an agency of government. It is not an agency of government in the way that the health care corporations are agencies of government carrying out government policy. The University is intended to be an autonomous body of scholars undertaking academic research, teaching of students, and community service through their scholarly work, research and public endeavours. It is funded by the public, as it should be, and there should be some accountability for how those funds are spent in the sense of process: whether there are proper policies backing up the expenditure of those funds, whether the administration of those monies is properly accounted for.
If this House or a Public Accounts Committee of this House or the government embarks of the scrutiny of expenditures with a view to instructing or attempting to interfere with the decisions that the Board of Regents and the University community make about its priorities for research, for teaching, for programs, then we will have to change this legislation. We will have to do something to make sure and ensure that the autonomy of the University and the notion of academic freedom is put properly in its place and given the kind of recognition that it deserves.
With that qualification, Mr. Speaker, I can support the resolution, but I will be looking very carefully to the reaction of the University. I will be looking very carefully to the reaction of the Auditor General in her approach to the University. I will be looking very carefully at how the Public Accounts Committee handles any dealings with the University with respect to the issue of the audit of its books.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to the private member's motion, standing in the name of the Member for Cape St. Francis, with respect to the role of the Auditor General and its involvement with the University.
I will give just a little bit of background with respect to the nature of the conflict between the Auditor General at this point and the University. The sense that we have is that the view of the Auditor General actually is that institutional autonomy - as it is often referred to at the University - and academic freedom and other issues are not incompatible at all with accountability in terms of expenditure of public funds, but there has been some resistance at certain points to pass over certain records or minutes and so on of decisions taken within the purview of the decision making component of the University, either at the Senate or at the Board of Regents.
The government has continually encouraged the University to be as open as it possibly can with respect to financial issues, without compromising the whole notion of academic freedom. Nobody in this Legislature would want to suggest to any place of higher learning, an institution like the University, what they should be teaching or should not be teaching or those kinds of things, or what the content and courses should be. Nobody wants to get into that debate. We get assurances from the Auditor General that that office is not interested in that part of the issue either. What the Auditor General would like to do, on behalf of the people of the Province, is to assure everybody - legislators like ourselves, and the public generally - that the funds provided, over $100 million a year from taxpayers to the University, are being spent in an appropriate fashion, and not to make a judgement on whether or not there should be a School of Music or whether we should have a business school and so on.
So our understanding is that the Auditor General could perform and would like to perform at the University some additional examinations above and beyond just looking at the audited report and seeing whether they think is good or bad. They would like to look at a review of procedures in place relating to fixed assets, and issues with respect to purchasing, in human resource management, and those kinds of issues. Also to look at the checks and balances that are in place at the University regarding management practices - things regarding planning, organizing, reporting and control systems that are in place at the University - to probably, as the Auditor General does for many departments of government and Crown agencies, make some useful suggestions as to how they might even put better controls in place to give effect to the decisions that they have taken at the University for the expenditure of funds.
So on behalf of the government I can clearly indicate to hon. members that we are very supportive of the tone, tenor and nature of the private member's resolution that is presented. The encouragement I have given actually, the slant that I present to the University, is that, really, for all of us and for the credibility of the University, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally would probably welcome an Auditor General's review of their financial status and their financial practices. Because the University, through that process, would be able to demonstrate to the public that they had been good stewards of the public's money, with respect to offering post-secondary opportunities in our only University in the Province.
The private member's motion talked about urging "the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take whatever action is necessary" to effectively give "the Auditor General full access to all books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law." We would encourage the University to do that. We know at this point there has been a difference of opinion as to exactly what the Auditor General is entitled to by law. We would encourage the University to be as open as possible and to use this - instead of being any threat to the autonomy of the University or any threat to their decision making process - as an opportunity to demonstrate they are in fact good stewards of over $100 million worth of public funds that are being used in the best interest of a university education for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and others who come to take advantage of the service at Memorial University.
Mr. Speaker, we would very much encourage this, and are ready actually to vote on this resolution immediately and give it the unanimous support of the House, if that is the wish of members opposite. With those remarks I certainly look forward to voting in favour of the private member's motion.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I clue up the debate on this today I just want to thank the Minister of Education and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments. Obviously they support this private member's resolution as the Minister of Education just stated before he sat down.
I would like to mention a couple of quick things. The Minister of Education mentioned the institutional autonomy or academic freedom versus the legislative audit. I think it is clear what the intent of this private member's resolution is. They would have a legislative audit which would be entirely different than a financial audit, in that it would look at the management systems and practices, such as their budget process, their travel policies, their compensation practices, their fleets of vehicles, their compliance with legislation such as the Public Tendering Act. That is what we are looking at. We do not want to have to go into Memorial University and tell them what courses they can teach or what courses they should not teach and what have you. That is not what we are looking for here today.
The Minister of Education mentioned that we should support the Auditor General receiving any books, records, or statements that the Auditor General is entitled to by law. I would like for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board or the Minister of Education to bring in an amendment to whatever act was required - the MUN act or the Auditor General's Act, whatever - and actually define what they can give. Because the problem is that there is a dispute between MUN and the Auditor General with respect to what records, minutes of certain meetings. The Auditor General can have access to the minutes of Cabinet meetings, I do believe, I say to the Minister of Education, yet she can not receive minutes of the Board of Regents, for example, from Memorial University.
These are the type of things that this private member's resolution is geared to. The Auditor General can have full access to all records, minutes of meetings and what have you, that are required for the Auditor General to do a complete audit, as she would do for the St. John's Health Care Corporation, the Western Memorial Health Care Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, or any entity that is under the jurisdiction of the Auditor General's office. That is basically what we are saying.
With that I will just clue up debate, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.
I declare the motion carried.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could revert to tabling of reports by leave of the House which was intended to be done today. Under statutory law there are two reports that have to be tabled within this time frame.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: If we could, Mr. Speaker, prior to that - while we just concluded the vote of private members -, have it recorded that it received unanimous approval in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Let the record show that the vote was unanimously in favour of the motion.
Now we will revert.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the 1997 Annual Report of the Workers' Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1997-1998 for Operation ON-LINE Incorporated.
MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?
We will resume the regular order of business.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just before we move on, tomorrow we will be doing Order No. 16, Bill 37, which is An Act Respecting Child, Youth and Family Services, and Order No. 17, An Act Respecting Security Interests in Personal Property.
It being Private Members' Day and the vote so recorded, there is no requirement for a motion to adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.
**************************************************************************