QUESTION PERIOD AT THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE! < Jeudi >

STC_2463, originally uploaded by Oldmaison.

ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 1/12
Aboriginal Peoples
Mr. S. Graham: Last November, the government of Canada struck a $5.1-billion accord in
Kelowna with the Aboriginal peoples and the First Ministers in an historic initiative to alleviate
social and economic disparities among our Aboriginal peoples. The Premier of this province was
one of the First Ministers who participated in these meetings, praised the achievement, and acted
as a witness to the signing of this historic accord.
The federal budget was released this week, and the government of Canada, under the leadership of
Stephen Harper, has committed less than $1 billion to address the pressing Aboriginal concerns. Of
that, only $450 million is earmarked for basic services on Canada’s First Nations reserves in
southern Canada, which includes New Brunswick. Therefore, I would like to ask the Premier this
afternoon what he intends to do regarding this apparent breach of faith with the First Nations
communities and with the provinces on the part of the federal Conservative government.
Hon. Mr. Lord: I am pleased to stand every day and get questions on the federal budget. I would
love to get questions on the provincial budget as well, but obviously, the Liberals and the Leader
of the Opposition do not want to debate. They want to obstruct. That is okay. We are going to put
an end to the obstruction soon enough. We are going to make sure that the business of the people
gets done in this House. We will respect the mandate that we have been given by the people of New
Brunswick, and we ask the opposition to respect the mandate of the opposition that it received, not
a mandate of obstruction.
With regard to the Aboriginal people of New Brunswick, we will continue to work with the
Aboriginal people of this province, and we will work, as well, with the federal government.
Mr. S. Graham: The Premier did not answer the question, which was very specific. The Premier
was a participant in an historic accord that saw over $5.1 billion allocated for economic
development, infrastructure, and housing, as well as the health care needs of Aboriginal peoples
across the country.
010 13:40
That meant that a substantial amount of dollars would also be forwarded to our province and our
First Nations communities. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since reneged on that important deal.
My question to the Premier is this: What steps is he taking to deal with this apparent breach of faith
with the First Nations communities? Is he willing to ask Stephen Harper to reconsider his decision?
Hon. Mr. Lord: We are in this House to talk about the matters of the provincial government of the
province of New Brunswick. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask questions to the federal
government, he can ask the member for Moncton North to ask his cousin to ask the questions in
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 2/12
Parliament. The fact is that we are here to deal with the business of the government of New
Brunswick. I have stated very clearly that the government of New Brunswick will continue to work
with the Aboriginal people of this province, and we will also work with the federal government as
it implements its strategies to assist the Aboriginal people of Canada.
Mr. S. Graham: As one of the participants of the Kelowna accord meetings, the Premier said the
following with regard to the plight of Aboriginal people in Canada and in New Brunswick: The
leaders around this table may not be responsible for the causes of the current situation; however, we
are responsible if we don’t change it. It is up to us to make it better. Those are your words, Mr.
Premier.
He also made the following statement: It is my desire that during this meeting we endorse a
principled approach for working together as partners in recognition of mutual respect, mutual
responsibility, and inclusiveness.
It sounds to me like the Premier has committed himself, if not our province, to supporting the
Kelowna accord. Has the Premier spoken to Prime Minister Harper and urged him to abide by this
principled approach of working together? Can he explain why the Prime Minister is not following
the Premier’s advice?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I believe very strongly that the Aboriginal people of New Brunswick and the
Aboriginal people of Canada live in subpar conditions that are, frankly, not acceptable for a
developed country like Canada. I took the time myself two weeks ago to go to the Red Bank First
Nation, the Metepenagiag First Nation, to act as honorary chief for a day. I spent time with the
elders, I spent time with students, and I spent time with the council to hear their concerns and to talk
to them about their concerns.
We look at how Native people live in this province, and how Native people live in Canada, and we
look at the United Nations development index, and we know that Canada, as a country, usually ranks
from one to five—we are usually up there—but the Aboriginal people of Canada would rank 63rd.
Clearly, we can do better. That is why our government, the government of New Brunswick, is
committed to working with the federal government and the Aboriginal people of this province to
improve their economic status, their educational status, they health status, and their social status,
because I see a lot of potential in the Aboriginal people of New Brunswick.
Mr. S. Graham: When 40% of the provincial budget is dependent on the federal budget, this
budget, of course, is important to New Brunswick. That is why we are discussing this issue today.
I realize that Premier Lord visited a First Nations community and was named Honorary Chief Lord.
I would like to ask Honorary Chief Lord this afternoon if he is committed to the principle causes that
he has just discussed. We agree that substandard housing conditions are deplorable for any
government. That is why we have to move forward to give Aboriginal communities in our province,
not only the recognition, but the funding that they require to alleviate this deplorable situation.
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 3/12
There was an accord signed to commit $5.1 billion. You were a participant in this historic
agreement. Now, Prime Minister Harper is saying that the dollars that were to be allocated to New
Brunswick will no longer be there. My question to you is this: What is the dollar amount that has
been reduced by the federal government, under the federal budget, that should have been included
if the Kelowna accord had been honoured?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I was a participant at the Kelowna meetings, and I was pleased to be there to
represent New Brunswick. I believe it is important for New Brunswick to be at these meetings, in
the same way that I believe it is important for New Brunswick to be at the meetings of New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. I do not agree with the objective of the Liberals to have
New Brunswick represented by an empty chair. I will be there representing New Brunswick at
meetings, as I was at Kelowna.
011 13:45
With regard to this specific issue, we will do what we can, as a provincial government, within our
responsibilities, to help the Native people of New Brunswick to improve their economic, social,
educational, and health status in this province, because we know that they have great potential and
that they want to contribute to our province. That is why I am reaching out to the Aboriginal people
of this province—because I want to work with them.
Mr. S. Graham: Mr. Premier, the reason that chair will be empty is that you have chosen not to
restore integrity to the most important chair in this Chamber. We offered you a permanent pairing
agreement—a permanent agreement that would have resolved your position, and you chose not to
accept it.
Mr. Premier, I am very concerned today: This was $5.1 billion in funding which would have been
allocated across every province. You have chosen not to answer the question of what dollar amount
this will mean to New Brunswick, now that Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of our country, has
decided not to honour this historic accord. What is the dollar amount that Aboriginal communities
in New Brunswick will now not be receiving from the federal government? That is the question you
have failed to answer, Mr. Premier.
Hon. Mr. Lord: Let us be clear on a few things. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition proposed
did not contain a permanent pairing arrangement. That is incorrect.
As well, I take objection to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wants to question the integrity
of the Speaker of this House. He says he did not say it, but that was exactly what he implied. That
is the type of Leader of the Opposition we are facing. The opposition members will use all sorts of
innuendoes, then they will say: We did not say that. We know . . .
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 4/12
Mr. Speaker: Honourable members, please show a little respect for the person I recognize who has
the floor.
Hon. Mr. Lord: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When the opposition Liberals had a chance
to let one of their own stand as Speaker, they chose not to. After that, they decided to attack the
integrity of the Speaker. That is incorrect, and that is small-time politics.
Let us be clear as to what the Liberals are suggesting. There is one principle they do not support, and
that is the principle of every member of this House having one vote. They think it is okay if two
members do not get to vote and if that somehow gives them a majority. We will not stand for that,
because every riding in this province counts the same as every other. That is why every riding will
have one vote on the matters of this House.
Mr. S. Graham: Since the Premier wants to make this a debate about the office of Speaker and the
credibility that is required of the Chair, he is blaming us today for not letting a Liberal member
stand. May I remind the Premier that he himself did not allow one of the government members’
names to stand, and he was susceptible to blackmail, as his own member stated, in determining who
would be Speaker.
My question to the Premier pertains to issues of Aboriginal communities in the province. Three
times, this Premier has deflected the question and has not answered it. How much money would we
have received if the Kelowna accord had been honoured? What are the Aboriginal communities of
New Brunswick missing because of this Premier’s siding with Prime Minister Stephen Harper
instead of siding with the Aboriginal communities of New Brunswick?
Hon. Mr. Lord: It was the Leader of the Opposition who raised the issue of the integrity of the
Speaker during question period. I will not stand for that when there is no reason for it.
There is a simple principle of democracy that the Leader of the Opposition wants to reject: Every
member who represents a riding is entitled to one vote in this House. The Liberals want to rely on
rules to prevent that from happening, to prevent a budget which will help the people of New
Brunswick, which will help the children by lowering class sizes, which will help seniors by
protecting the homes that the Liberals wanted to take away, which will protect our regions with
more economic development investment. This budget will also build better roads.
012 13:50
That is what this House is about, and that is why we are here, to defend and promote an excellent
budget that builds for the Aboriginal people and for all the people of New Brunswick.
Mr. S. Graham: Once again, the Premier has not answered the question of how much money will
be taken out of this federal budget that should have been committed to Aboriginal communities.
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 5/12
Instead, he wants to talk about how this Legislature should function. May I remind the Premier that,
when Frank McKenna had a majority of 58 seats in this House, he brought the official opposition
into the House through other means? Now that it is 27 to 27, we have a Premier who wants to take
the opposition outside of the Chamber, and that is wrong. That is what differentiates this government
from the previous Liberal government. There is honour and there are traditions that have to be
respected. This Premier wants to gut this institution by taking away the rights of opposition members
to vote, and that is wrong.
Hon. Mr. Lord: The Leader of the Opposition is using some words, but he may ask his members,
the lawyers sitting behind him, to instruct him as to what they mean. He should understand
something that is very clear: Every member of this House is entitled to one vote. Every member who
represents a riding is entitled to one vote: one vote on bills, one vote on the budget, and one vote on
the motions. What the Liberals want is a system that prevents two of our members from voting and
that somehow gives the opposition control of the House. That is undemocratic. The opposition was
not elected to obstruct. The opposition was not elected by the people of New Brunswick. We were
given a mandate by the people of New Brunswick, and so were the opposition members. Our
mandate was to govern. We are, and we will. Their mandate was to oppose, but not to obstruct. Their
deal with the public is to stand up and ask questions, criticize, and propose, but not prevent things
from happening. We will ensure that every member of this House who represents one riding will be
entitled to one vote.
Mr. S. Graham: Let’s not forget that it is this Premier who is not honouring the traditions of this
institution that have stood for over 200 years. Because this Premier does not respect the democratic
vote that was given to him in the last election, he is now attempting to change the rules of this House
that have stood for over 200 years. That is undemocratic. Very clearly, he first wanted to give one
of his members two votes. He then said: Let’s not give the opportunity for every opposition member
to vote on the budget in the estimates process. Now, he is saying: Let’s give an opportunity for the
Speaker to vote in the committee. There are traditions that this House has to honour. We gave you
a fair opportunity and a fair agreement to allow this House to function, and you chose not to accept
it. It is you who are undemocratic today. There is only one way to clear this obstacle: Allow the
highest voice of the land to speak. That is the people of New Brunswick. They should decide who
should have a clear majority today in New Brunswick.
Hon. Mr. Lord: I think it rings hollow when the Leader of the Opposition talks about honouring
tradition, when he will not even honour the tradition of pairing in this House. That is an honourable
tradition, and a tradition that the opposition does not respect. It will say that we broke that tradition.
That was the day when the member for Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak gave his commitment to pair
with the member for Saint John-Kings. He went on the radio and said that, if they could defeat the
government that day, they would, when he had a pairing arrangement with her. She was at the
bedside of her dying brother. That is the type of Liberal opposition that we have. If the Leader of
the Opposition wants to talk about traditions, committees on estimates are a tradition, a tradition that
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 6/12
I believe was ended by the leader that he talked about, Premier Frank McKenna. Maybe the member
needs to do a little bit more research.
013 13:55
The facts are that the House has committees and that the committees are not the master of the House;
the House is the master of the committees. Only in the House does every member have a vote. When
the Leader of the Opposition wants to say that we want to prevent members of the opposition from
voting on the budget, it is untrue. Every single member of the opposition will have one vote.
Mr. S. Graham: That explains why our Premier does not understand how democracy functions. He
forgot to mention the most important reason we are here. The House should be the master of the
people. The people will decide who is going to govern the people of the House. The people will . . .
Mr. Speaker: Members, I would ask, when a member is recognized, that you please have a little
respect and allow the member to speak.
Mr. S. Graham: Everyone makes mistakes in this House. I will admit that I just made a mistake.
The people opposite want to laugh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. S. Graham: It has to be said that the people of New Brunswick should decide. We, in this
House, are elected to represent the people. What is most important of all today is that this Premier
will not allow that function to occur. This Premier wants to change the rules so that his government
can cling to power.
Hon. Mr. Lord: I accept that the Leader of the Opposition made a mistake. That is okay, because
it happens. I accept it. Sometimes, everybody makes mistakes. That happens in life, and I respect
that.
There is an important principle here. When the Leader of the Opposition says that we do not respect
the decision of the people, it is the other way around. The people of New Brunswick decided, on
June 9, 2003, to give us a majority mandate. We have the exact same 28 people who were elected
on that day, which created a majority government. He says: Let us have an election now. Well,
legally, the mandates in this province are for five years. Traditionally, they are for four. It has not
yet been three. I love elections just as much as they do—maybe even more. I look forward to the
next election, when we can earn another mandate from the people of New Brunswick. I will continue
my discussion . . .
Mr. S. Graham: What we have here is a principle disagreement. I respect the fact that the Premier
recognized that I wanted to say that the people are the masters of this House. I respect that.
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 7/12
The point that I wanted to make to you today, Mr. Premier, is the following: You attempted to
increase your majority by having a by-election in Shediac-Cap-Pelé and by having a by-election in
Saint John Harbour. The people of New Brunswick chose not to give you an increased majority.
They said to you that the House should function as it stood.
Well, today, we have a principle disagreement. We have a government that believes its budget is
correct, and we have, on this side of the House, the position that the people of New Brunswick
should not waste another year on the many pressing issues facing our province. We are dealing with
the fact that, as I have said, last year, our economy had the second-slowest growth rate in the
country. Then, there is the fact that wait lists for certain surgical services have doubled under this
government’s mandate, during the last seven years. There is the fact that we have the worst access
to postsecondary education in North America, according to a report that came out, saying that there
are only two other jurisdictions which are worse off than we are. There are many pressing issues
today facing our province.
We believe in our platform, and you believe in your budget. Allow the people of New Brunswick
to decide who is right.
Mr. Speaker: State the question.
Hon. Mr. Lord: The people of New Brunswick gave us a mandate, and there was an election.
Again, I will repeat that I love elections as much as the Liberals, and I look forward to the next
election, probably even more than the Liberals, because I want to earn another mandate from the
people of New Brunswick. I would love to have more members in this House. The fact is that I
respect the mandate that I have been given by the people of New Brunswick. The Leader of the
Opposition does not respect his. I believe that he is concerned that his mandate from the Liberal
Party is about to run out.
014 14:00
That is not my concern. My concern is making sure that we eliminate the HST on power. My
concern is making sure that we protect the homes of seniors. My concern is making sure that we add
more teachers and reduce class sizes. My concern is that we lower taxes and add to the 36 000 more
jobs that we have added, with the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. The people gave us a
mandate for five years, traditionally four, not a mandate until the Leader of the Opposition decides
that he is going to block the workings of this House.
Résultats scolaires
M C. Robichaud : Mes questions sont pour le ministre me re de l’Éducation.
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 8/12
According to documents obtained by the Telegraph-Journal, these are the results of the middle-level
English language proficiency assessment of Grade 9 students in the Anglophone school system. In
New Brunswick, 40% of students were experiencing difficulties in reading, and only 20% showed
strong performance. About 46.8% of students were experiencing difficulties in writing, with only
0.3% showing strong performance. Is the Minister of Education satisfied with these results that show
that nearly half of New Brunswick’s Anglophone students are experiencing difficulty with literacy?
Hon. Mr. Williams: The results that appeared in the Telegraph-Journal this morning have been
distributed to all district levels. Those results raise some concerns in the Department of Education,
but I must add that we are working to improve the situation regarding reading and writing in the
schools in New Brunswick. We have good initiatives in place, and in the budget, we have some good
measures. I am very disappointed that the members opposite are going to vote against those
measures.
M C. Robichaud : Si quelque chose a été fait, ce n’est pas suffisame nt.
These students were tested in Grade 4. They were tested again in Grade 7, and these students will
be graduating in three years. That is not a lot of time to turn this around. We cannot afford to wait
another year for those students. What does the Minister of Education intend to put in place to help
these students graduate?
Hon. Mr. Williams: The member opposite is talking about measures, and again, she will be voting
against measures in the budget to improve education in New Brunswick. We have the Quality
Learning Agenda initiative that this government put in place three years ago. This is producing good
results. I might add that the government received a mandate in 1999, and one of the key elements
was to improve the quality of education in New Brunswick. This plan is working, and I hope that
the member from the opposite side will support the measures that we are proposing in the budget.
Conflict of Interest
Mr. Arseneault: In March 2003, the Deputy Premier turned a three-day wireless conference into
a nine-day pleasure trip to the casino capital of the world, Las Vegas, courtesy of New Brunswick
taxpayers. The Deputy Premier says he did other work when he was in Las Vegas—perhaps scouting
out tourism destination facilities on behalf of Atlantic Loto or noted Las Vegas cultural institutions
on behalf of the Minister of Wellness, Culture and Sport. Will the Deputy Premier immediately
provide this House with his entire agenda for this nine-day Las Vegas adventure?
Hon. D. Graham: I certainly was in Las Vegas. I was attending a wireless committee conference.
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 9/12
015 14:05
The conference was the sixth day. There was a three-day preregistration and a three-day show. I also
had a tour of the fire department. On another day, I also had a tour of the police station. I can tell
you that I received a lot of information. As a matter of fact, we are still working within the
department to meet the needs of DNR, NB Power, DOT, and Public Safety.
Therefore, the member for Dalhousie-Restigouche East can get up and smear me. I see the member
for Saint John Lancaster flaunting a big cartoon today. I can tell you that, in the last 48 hours, I have
received a number of phone calls from around the province. I must say that, if you are elected for
14 years, you get to know a few people around the province. I can tell you that I appreciate that. I
also had four members of the opposition come to me in the last 48 hours, who stated how
embarrassed they are to be caught up in the sleazy, down, smear campaign of the Shawn Graham
Liberals.
Mr. Arseneault: Three days to sign your name on a registration form seems quite a bit. The Deputy
Premier claimed a per diem and hotel expenses for each day over and above his registration fee for
the three-day conference. The Deputy Premier’s excuse is that he took advantage of a seat sale,
which he says saved taxpayers’ money. Documents show that the seat sale saved taxpayers
approximately $300. However, the taxpayers are footing the bill for the extra six-day holiday of the
Deputy Premier, with a per diem of $40 and a hotel bill totaling $US800. I ask the Deputy Premier
to show New Brunswickers how saving $300 on a flight, but claiming more in per diems and hotel
bills, ends up saving New Brunswick taxpayers money. Is that managing smarter?
Hon. D. Graham: I know that the member for Dalhousie-Restigouche East will never have the
honour of being a Cabinet minister. He does not understand what per diems are. A per diem is $40
per day. I must say that I only charge per diems when I am out and about doing business. I know
somebody, a former member of this House, who charges per diems seven days per week, and I think
I can name the name if I have to. I have no problem defending my expense account. I will stand by
my expense account and put it against any former Liberal Cabinet minister’s in this House.
Mr. Arseneault: The Deputy Premier sounds like my kid. Every time he knows he is in the wrong,
he changes the subject. On top of this misuse of taxpayers’ money, the Deputy Premier paid for his
ministerial expenses through the credit card of Grama’s Bake Shop, a company held in blind trust,
where the Deputy Premier cannot be involved in its management or operations, or make decisions
that benefit his company. In today’s media reports, the Deputy Premier states that he did not bill all
this travel to the Grama’s Bake Shop credit card, but his ministerial secretary did. Given that the
company of the Deputy Premier is to be held in a blind trust with no interaction between the
company and his ministerial office, why does a government secretary . . .
Mr. Speaker: Ask the question, please.
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 10/12
Mr. Arseneault: (Inaudible) . . . Grama’s Bake Shop . . . (inaudible) . . . lying around.
(Interjections.)
Hon. D. Graham: I once again challenge the member to go outside and make those allegations. I
have spoken to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner again today. I spoke to the gentleman. If he
has any allegations that he wants to make with me, go outside and make them.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills . . . State your point of order.
016 14:10
Points of Order
Mr. Huntjens: I have been listening this afternoon to the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Every time he turns around, he makes innuendos and statements that are false, as far as I am
concerned. He again did it in connection with something that happened to me personally. He made
the insinuation that the Premier ordered me to remove my name from the list. That is exactly what
you said, sir. To me, that is an outright, inaccurate statement. I expect an apology from you,
considering the fact that it was I who removed my name from the list, and it was not done under the
orders of the Premier.
Mr. Lamrock: I do not know if we are to use points of order to clear up factual things. If so, I
would point out the Premier threw an attack at me today that he told me privately he knew was false.
I think the Leader of the Opposition would certainly acknowledge his larger point was that members
of the opposition were not given the chance to know they did not have the opportunity to vote for
the member for Western Charlotte in the Speaker election.
As to what transpired behind closed doors, certainly, I would acknowledge to the member for
Western Charlotte that no one else but he can know what happened and we cannot possibly know,
so I would set the record straight factually there.
Again, for greater certainty, I am taking the member for Western Charlotte at his word. The point
the leader wanted to make is there was not a Liberal on the ballot for Speaker because they believed,
up until the final moment, that they would have the chance to vote for the member for Western
Charlotte. But when the member for Western Charlotte says that he was not ordered to, we would
have no way of knowing to the contrary. He is a member of this House, and I take him at his word,
as I wish others would take me at my word.
Mr. Speaker: On the points of order, both members clarified their points, and we will continue to
move on with the business of the House and introduction of bills.
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 11/12
Oral Questions
Provincial Health Plan
Hon. Mr. Green: I have a response to a question posed in the House yesterday when the member
for Shediac—Cap-Pelé asked about support for the New Brunswick Rural Health Research Network.
I am pleased to inform the House that our department is assisting the network and has dedicated a
staff person to assist in its development.
In fact, I have a letter here, a copy of which I will gladly provide to the member opposite, from the
New Brunswick Heathcare Association, thanking us for this important commitment on our part to
its work. The letter also clearly states that it is its intention to pursue “a federally funded rural health
research institute for New Brunswick”. We support the New Brunswick Rural Health Research
Network in its efforts to secure a commitment from the federal government for long-term funding.
This is absolutely vital, because we have seen too many times in this province where the federal
government, in years past, has provided start-up funding for an initiative and then walked away,
leaving the provincial government holding the bag.
017 14:15
We are assisting this group with a resource person, and we have certainly not ruled out further
involvement from there.
On the issue of the provincial health plan and support for research in this province, as I stated
yesterday, in the past few days, I have signed several letters informing successful applicants that
they will receive research funding this year under the New Brunswick Medical Research Fund. This
year, we are awarding $126 000 in research grants through this fund, and these monies represent the
interest that has been earned on the $3-million trust fund held by our department to support made-in-
New Brunswick research.
Mr. V. Boudreau: I want to start by thanking the Minister of Health for the information he
provided; he did offer to table it, and I hope he will do that.
The point of my questioning yesterday was that, on the one hand, we have the New Brunswick rural
research network, and, on the other hand, we have the $3-million research fund. Nowhere did I see
that it was a trust fund and that only the interest was supposed to be spent. My question yesterday
was this: If we have this network on one side that is trying to get off the ground, and if we have this
$3-million medical research fund that is not being used at present—or was not being used until very
recently—would the minister consider taking some of this $3 million and giving it to the network,
to help the network further advance its objective of becoming a full-blown institute, recognized by
the national government and by national associations?
ORAL QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ORALES
May 4, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 4 mai 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\30 2006-05-04 BL\30 2006-05-04 BL.wpd 12/12
Hon. Mr. Green: We will entertain any request for assistance form the network, but I will repeat
the comment I made just a moment ago: The network itself has stated very clearly that when it
embarked upon this project, it was to be a federally funded research institute. We support that; if it
is going to be successful, that is what is required. We are already working with them cooperatively.
We have provided a staff person from our department to assist the network in any way possible. If
these people come back and ask us for something more, we will be more than happy to consider it.