Vol. XLIII No. 33 May 27,

1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to take

the opportunity to welcome to the galleries today twenty-five A.B.E. from the Skill for

Success School. They are accompanied by their instructor, Ann Buckle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today

Delores Flynn from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living, along

with Mary Ennis from the Coalition for Persons with Disabilities; and Mary Reid,

Independent Living Resource Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Information Technology Human Resource

Development Strategy Committee today released its final report entitled: Information

Technology - Closing the Human Resources Gap in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The committee that reported on this important issue, Mr. Speaker, is a

partnership of interested parties including Operation ONLINE Inc, Human Resources

Development Canada, the Newfoundland and Labrador Alliance of Technical Industries, the

Canadian Information Processing Committee, industry and educational stakeholders, and the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The committee was established to address changes in the IT sector,

particularly as they relate to the human resource issues and requirements.

Mr. Speaker, the report provides us with valuable information that

enables us to make changes now that will benefit our people in the future. It also

provides us with insight on where our Province is today in terms of the IT growth. We have

230 IT firms operating in the Province today, employing approximately 6,000 of our people

in the information technology sector in our Province. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker,

that this represents a 30 per cent increase over the past year.

This study highlights the need for us to adapt to the rapid changes in

the information technology sector, particularly with the high demand for, and shortage of,

qualified and experienced workers.

What the study found, Mr. Speaker, was that there is a significant gap

between the skills possessed by entry-level employees in the IT sector and those desired

by IT employers. A second, and equally important find, as my colleagues will appreciate,

is the need for experienced employees and a need to improve specific skills and knowledge

areas.

Mr. Speaker, we take these findings seriously and have taken steps to

close the technology gap this study has determined. The first step is the introduction of

an industry development strategy put forth by Operation ONLINE.

Mr. Speaker, my department is committed to working with Operation

ONLINE, the Department of Education, industry and the other stakeholders, to meet the

challenges in the growing IT sector. This morning my colleague, the Minister of Education,

announced that we have formed a new Provincial Education and Training Advisory Committee

for reviewing existing and new Information Technology programs offered by training

institutes.

These are steps, Mr. Speaker, that we believe will help us to

effectively develop the information technology sector in our Province and assist in our

efforts to diversify our economy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is another good news statement, Mr. Speaker. Information

technology is perhaps the area that we have to start looking toward, as did Ireland. We

see what happened with the Irish economy, what happened in Ireland, and the low

unemployment rate they have, the booming economy.

We need that here. Our geographic location is not that much different

than that of Ireland, Mr. Speaker. We need to start looking at progressive ways of

employing our people here, keeping people from moving out of the Province, eliminating the

out-migration from this Province. Perhaps if we were to look at investing $800,000 or a

million dollars into bringing people back to this Province with the proper skills to put

into these positions and start expanding on this sector to strengthen our economy, perhaps

that would be money well spent.

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: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a great supporter of information technology and the IT industry

but, as often is the case, there is a great deal of difference between the rhetoric and

the reality. Here we are promoting the IT sector with 6,000 employees, and yet the

government cannot keep a web site up to date and is still advertising on its web site for

tourism, events that took place last summer.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is really a need. There is really a need for

this committee to make a good report, and hopefully we will have Operation ONLINE help to

identify the IT programs that the private sector is offering and advertising broadly

(inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - as good quality or poor quality, because I think

there is a lot of confusion in the whole scene.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Not paid for by the people, Mr. Premier, I would say.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Council of Ministers of Education for

Canada, we are pleased to play host to the Third National Forum on Education which is

being held here in St. John's at the Delta Hotel beginning tomorrow and running until

Saturday. This National Forum will consist of approximately 350 participants, with

representatives from government and national non-governmental organizations. Also in

attendance will be the ministers of education and advanced education from every

jurisdiction across the country.

Mr. Speaker, this forum is a great opportunity for us, as education

partners, to come together and build on a sense of community, to develop a common

understanding on specific issues in relation to education, and to develop a sense of

shared responsibility in addressing those issues. The theme for this year's event is

`Education and Life-Transitions' where the focus will be on the school system, including

preschool; school to work and work to school; and the changing labour market environment.

This National Forum will also be an opportunity for the Council of Ministers of Education

to present and discuss its national agenda and for all partners to comment on that agenda.

The keynote speaker for the event is Mr. Jacques Delors, former

President of the European Union, and Chair of UNESCO International Commission on Education

for the Twenty-first Century.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members on the government side of the

House, I would like to welcome all delegates to the National Forum on Education and to

encourage them to stay on for a few days, if possible, and experience the full range of

Newfoundland and Labrador warmth and hospitality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, we too want to

welcome all of the delegates attending the Third National Forum on Education. I am sure it

is a privilege for the minister to be the host, and we certainly encourage any program

which offers the opportunities for educators across this country to come to Newfoundland

and share with us their expertise, and for us in turn to be able to share knowledge of our

Province and offer them our hospitality.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that we are going to be including

some discussions on the preschool system. This is an area of concern to many educators,

and in terms of intervention and prevention and early education, theorists are telling us

(inaudible) one area where we should be concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: I take the opportunity again to say to the Minister

that this is good news and we welcome it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does

the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in welcoming the delegation to the convention and

hope that it is an opportunity for the development of a national consensus on some of the

issues that are of great importance, particularly to students today in the area of paying

for post-secondary education, on the student loans issue and the student debt. The new

attempt by the national government to prevent the students from declaring bankruptcy if

they have overextended themselves, is a good opportunity, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - to promote that kind of understanding that is

necessary today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, having a job is an important part of

participating and contributing fully to society. Yet people with disabilities often face

barriers that keep them from finding work. In Newfoundland and Labrador, only about

one-quarter of people living with a disability are employed.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce a program that will respond

to this growing concern and need in our Province. The Employability Assistance for People

With Disabilities initiative is a five-year $41 million agreement between the Government

of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador which replaces the Vocational

Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the federal, provincial and territorial governments

started working together early in 1997 to explore ways to improve the Vocational

Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons Program. This had been in place for thirty-five years.

In October 1997, Ministers responsible for Social Services approved a Multilateral

Framework for Employability Assistance.

This program, known as EAPD, will help those with a disability acquire

the skills, experience and supports necessary to successfully enter or remain in the

workforce. Active programs in employment counselling and assessment, employment planning,

pre-employment training, post-secondary education, skills training, assistive aids and

other workplace supports will help ensure that those in our Province living with a

disability have access to job opportunities and training.

Mr. Speaker, the EAPD initiative is a financial arrangement between the

federal and provincial governments. Through the Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Bilateral

million annually, of eligible provincial programs and services.

Mr. Speaker, a three-year transition program will allow our Province

the time needed to adjust and re-evaluate programs to reflect the new employability focus,

while avoiding disruptions in current client service. Mr. Speaker, the goal of this

agreement is to help develop focused programs and services that are effective in helping

people with disabilities prepare for, find and maintain employment.

EAPD demonstrates the commitment of all governments to work in

partnership to renew and enhance Canada's social programs. I feel strongly that the new

Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities program will go a long way in

meeting the employment needs and concerns of those living with disabilities in our

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of

the statement. I am extremely pleased with this announcement of Employability Assistance

for People with Disabilities. Anything that will enhance the life of persons with

disabilities is to be applauded, and on the surface this program appears to be a

tremendous move in the right direction.

I particularly like the three-year transition period which will allow

time to evaluate the programs and also will avoid disruptions to the clients. I like the

part about reporting annually, which allows for accountability. This is always a good

thing. I await further details before making a final judgment. I say to the minister, I

can't wait for tomorrow's ministerial statement.

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.

I am pleased to see that despite changes in the federal government's

attitude towards social programs that this type of program will be continuing for a

further five years. I didn't notice anything in the statement indicating the involvement

of people with disabilities in the design of this program, and I hope that will become the

feature of its implementation at a very early date. Because as we see, sometimes programs

that are designed to assist people, in fact, face stringent barriers to implementation,

including restrictive provincial regulations, which have been recently identified by women

attempting to get an education.

So, I hope that people will be consulted, Mr. Speaker, in the

implementation of this very important and valuable program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform hon. members that government plans to hold a

series of public consultation meetings on the Province's Green Paper on Adoption Policy

and Law. I invite interested individuals and community representatives to make their views

known by participating in one of the six consultation meetings which will be taking place

across the Province in May and June.

Mr. Speaker, government and the people of this Province are concerned

about the current adoption system. Our present legislation governing adoption is nearly

fifty years old and, clearly, it needs to be revisited in order to meet today's needs.

Mr. Speaker, the Green Paper on Adoption Policy and Law was released in

the House of Assembly last February by the hon. Minister of Human Resources and

Employment. It was developed by an Adoption Advisory Committee which was appointed to

identify and discuss issues related to the adoption process in this Province. In preparing

this document, the Committee invited birth parents, adoptees, adoptive parents and

professionals with adoption experience to comment on issues related to adoption. Members

of the Committee also explored relevant literature and looked at adoption reform taking

place in other jurisdictions.

Interested individuals have had a chance to review the Green paper and

today, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the public for their input on this document to help shape

the Province's adoption policies and practices of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members may wish to note some of the issues which

will be on the table for public comment and discussion: Adoption of an older child;

adoption by a step-parent or relative; direct placement of a child in a home chosen by the

birth mother; private adoption agencies and other delivery options; open elements in

adoption; and the disclosure of adoption records.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of these consultation meetings cannot be

overstated. Government places great value on the opinions of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and we need to hear their input in order to proceed with change. This is a

real opportunity for those who are directly affected by this legislation to voice their

concerns and to offer suggestions as to how government can improve the system for the

future.

I ask hon. members to join me in encouraging those who have an interest

in this subject to make their views known during the consultation commitment. Government

is committed to improving adoption practices for everyone involved and we welcome the

views of the people throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, I say to the minister, that we are given an opportunity

for public input. We, all along, have advocated that we need to involve professionals, we

need to involve people directly affected in dealing with what we are going to do and in

particular with children who need and who want the opportunity to be adopted, regardless

of the role or the involvement.

This is an opportunity, I say to the minister, as we have said before

on occasion - and we have supported a full consultative input by the general public, and

we certainly hope on the conclusion, minister, you will seriously consider the input by

the public.

I have had a few calls, I might add, not several. I have had a couple I

can recall recently on this issue and I have indicated to them, and I have said publicly,

that I feel the entire public should be involved. It is an issue that involves everybody.

I certainly look forward to the public input and certainly, in its finality, what move the

department makes on this particular issue.

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.

I am pleased to hear that this process is going forward. Clearly, after

fifty years attitudes on the whole issue of adoption and the regulations associated with

it are due for a change. Attitudes have changed and the law must change along with it.

There are some issues that need very careful consideration, but I think we should get on

with these discussions. Consultation has been going on for some years now and it is time

to start bringing the matter to a head.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: A little bit of good news.

I am standing, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Association of Fire

Chiefs and Firefighters. I met with them yesterday and I promised them I would do this.

This is a bit of good news I would like to have a chance to announce.

In conjunction with the Minister of Education, I am pleased to advise

the House that the nationally recognized program, Learn Not to Burn, is now part of the

curriculum in 56 per cent of our schools in the Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and

Firefighters has been working diligently with the Department of Education and the Office

of the Fire Commissioner to ensure the success of this program, which has been ongoing now

for a year.

Our objective is to achieve full implementation by the end of the

1998-99 school year. The Burin and Clarenville - Bonavista South School Districts have

already achieved 100 per cent implementation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: And others are nearing that. In fact, the Avalon East

one is getting up there as well.

The Learn Not to Burn Program reaches school aged children -

Kindergarten to Grade III - with vital life safety information. It stresses the teaching

of positive, practical fire prevention behaviour.

This is significant when you consider that 484 fire deaths occurred in

our Province over the last twenty-five years; 154 of those were children. Public education

of school age children through the Learn Not to Burn program saves lives and reduces

property loss from fires.

These life safety skills remain with children because it has already

been proven that children remember. As of July 1997 there have been forty-seven lives

saved across Canada due to the lessons learned from this particular program including, I

am very pleased to say, three kids saved because of this program in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to first, of course, thank the minister today for

providing me with a copy of his statement. Indeed, Minister, it is good news. If I really

didn't know the difference I would be almost expecting the Premier later on today to go to

Government House and actually call an election.

Seriously, Mr. Minister, this is certainly good news. I've been

involved with a volunteer fire department in my area. We have two over the years. Any time

there is a fire prevention week or whatever -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I would say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, this is not a foolish thing. You may think it is, but this is serious. It is

too bad you can't treat it as a serious thing. This is a very serious issue. It helps

children. If you have small children, or your children ever did this in a school and they

came home from school - I know my daughter, when she was at a very young age, came home,

and they did a fire safety thing in their school and that was practised in our house.

I say to the minister, congratulations on this. When it gets into all

our schools and all of our young children can take advantage of it, I think that we in

this Province will certainly see the advantages of it.

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.

It could be a very important addition to the web site, this kind of

information. I think this statement speaks for itself. It's quite important to recognize

the contribution of our fire-fighters and fire chiefs, not only in the fighting of fires

but also in the prevention side of it. What could be more important than educating our

children about these issues? They can, as the Member for Conception Bay South said, come

home from school and tell the parents what they are doing wrong in the area of fire

safety, and that can only be a positive thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair,

does she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too want to congratulate the fire-fighters and fire departments

around the Province for the efforts they are making in providing safety to our communities

and educating our children on preventative methods and how to deal with fires within their

own homes.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize the volunteer efforts of a

lot of these people, because they are volunteers, and they have made a great deal of

effort in providing this service to communities.

I have had the opportunity over the last few years to go into schools

and look at what kids have done in the Learn Not to Burn program. Mr. Speaker, the concept

they have, and the level of information they have been able to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: - portray to the public, has been outstanding.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education. Several weeks ago we

became aware that Memorial University's early offers of a scholarship program would

preclude many students from small schools from being eligible, due to the fact that their

course offerings and credits accumulated by the end of Level II would be less than the

prerequisites required.

I'm wondering if the minister, who has had time now to review this, has

had a chance to discuss it with Memorial University. What steps is he taking to ensure

that all the students in Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of whether they are from a

large school or from a small school, will have equal access to the University's offerings

of early scholarship programs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been assured by the University that every student in every high

school in Newfoundland and Labrador does have access to that program.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my discussions with the University, I am told they will be doing a

study to see how many students are negatively impacted, and that this is a matter that

will be decided by the university senate. I wanted to ask the minister: Since only the

senate is able to change the policy, when does he anticipate the senate will have a

recommendation from the officials at the university, and when can we expect to have a

definitive decision? Because until that is made, the parents of Newfoundland and Labrador

will still have anxiety about this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been given assurances by the university, regardless of what

their internal processes are, that the students will not be negatively or adversely

impacted.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fire the senate. Fire the senate.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this program is pretty significant to

many of the parents. As the minister knows, the last year there were about 305

scholarships awarded, varying from $2,000 to $25,000. This is a big issue for many

parents. We have had calls from parents from other parts of the Province, mostly from

rural Newfoundland. In one district, for example, in eight of the eleven schools, their

students would not be eligible.

The parents are asking that the minister use his authority to tell the

university they want a definite statement, because already there have been overtures made

to many schools by other universities seeking to attract the youngest and brightest of our

students.

I want again to ask the minister if he would, today, ask the university

to issue a statement definitively clarifying this matter for all parents of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might reference the hon. member to a letter in today's Letters to the

Editor in The Evening Telegram from Mr. Carson Leonard, Director of Scholarships

and Awards at Memorial University where he assures anyone who reads The Evening

Telegram, and he has assured others, that there will not be a problem.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Leonard also says that only the university

senate is able to change the policy. He has not given a date as to when that policy will

be changed. Until the senate changes the policy, it does not become official policy of the

university.

I ask the minister: Will he again discuss the matter with Mr. Leonard

to say when there can be a definite decision made that is binding on the university, and

becomes official policy as a statement by the university senate, rather than a statement

by Mr. Leonard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this gets to the nub of the matter again. The hon. member often

raises issues like this one which are serious, and suggests in the Legislature that there

is something I can do about it, or something that we should do about it here.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is a university in the

Province that has its own Board of Regents which makes decisions for the university. The

government funds the university, $100 million a year. There is also a senate that is

referenced in university that has certain decision-making powers and authorities within

the university. It does not matter what the hon. member says, Mr. Speaker, or what I might

say, these people make the decisions.

All I have said, is that I have been given every assurance by the

representatives of the university that they will not see students adversely impacted, and

that there will be fair treatment, regardless of which community and which school they

attend, when it comes to applying for scholarships at Memorial.

Unless and until, Mr. Speaker, we want to disband the Board of Regents,

disband the senate at the university and take the decisions here in this Legislature,

there is really no point to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

Your department funds $2,000, and even more in many cases, to care for

people who need Level I care, when that care is provided in their home or in a nursing

home, and a home for special care only costs this government a few hundred dollars a month

for a subsidised bed, for the same Level I care people.

The minister is always talking about client focused care, and I ask the

minister: Why are you discriminating against homes for special care by forcing them to

provide the same level of care for a fraction of what you are giving to people who give

care in nursing homes or within their own homes? I ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Yesterday, before we left this House, notice was given,

by consultation with the Opposition House Leader, that today we would be debating Motion

No. 10 which is a Private Members' -

AN HON. MEMBER: So what!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, so you do not care about the rules of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - Resolution put forward by the Member for Conception Bay

South, on personal care homes and so on in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I would refer Your Honour to a rule in Beauchesne that is known as the

Rule of Anticipation, which clearly says that anything that is set down on the Order Paper

to be debated today is not in order for Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of

order.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, or that so-called

point of order: The question on the Order Paper today deals specifically with increasing

funding to homes for special care, personal care homes.

I have not asked that question, and I have questions not related to

that specific part that I want to ask in this House today, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for that

right.

Personal care home operators came in from around this Province today on

the Private Members' Resolution. They asked the minister if they would

schedule

(inaudible) for you to attend and you would not gear your

schedule to be able to attend.

You have ignored them and they have a right to be heard in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind hon. members that it has been ruled quite often in this

House, and quite recently, that if there is a motion on the Order Paper to deal with

business, then that issue should not be raised during Question Period, and I rule the hon.

member's questions out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask a question to the minister, not on the

resolution that is there today, but on another aspect that is not covered in the

resolution today.

Uncontrolled licensing of new homes, and a lack of government action on

unlimited homes, have contributed to a high vacancy rate in homes for special care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen obviously has to

understand that debate on this resolution covers every topic or indeed may be meant to

cover every topic. The resolution is put forward to discuss personal care homes in their

broadest sense. While he might try to skate around Your Honour's ruling all he likes, the

truth of the matter is that he is anticipating a debate which -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) issue.

MR. TULK: No, no. He is anticipating a debate which will be broad

ranging and could possibly cover everything that is under personal care.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentlemen, that the reason

for that rule is to inform members, and to inform all of us, that indeed we can have a

wide range in debate on any subject that is on the Order Paper. That is the purpose of

putting it there, that we do not repeat and repeat and that we do not try to anticipate

what somebody else is going to say in debate. It is called the Rule of Anticipation, and

he must abide by it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Private Member's Resolution today submitted by my

colleague from Conception Bay South, specifically urges the government to grant an

appropriate increase for personal care homes.

I want to deal with other than increases, other issues out there,

vacancy rates and licensing of homes. It is a legitimate question that is not covered in

the Private Members' Resolution on this Order Paper today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, looking at the WHEREASES and the THEREFORES in the Resolution,

any question relating to this topic should not be raised at this point in time. It should

be raised elsewhere when the debate is continued.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask leave to ask some questions of concern to people in homes for

special care in this Province. I ask leave of this House to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. TULK: Look, the chair has ruled, and the chair has rightly

ruled. What the hon. gentlemen is doing - let us be honest and fair here - what the hon.

gentlemen is doing -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. TULK: - is grandstanding and trying to play to the gallery. He

has to abide by the rules of this House, otherwise it becomes a beer pit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Is the hon. member raising a point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask to raise a point of order or make a point of

order, Mr. Speaker. It is the right of this House to request leave. It has been done on

statements here today. It is always there. I just asked: Will government give leave to ask

those questions? If not, I will sit down. If they will, then I will continue to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not a point of order. The hon. the member has asked for leave and

no leave was granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. As the

minister is well aware, and in fact he has stated on many occasions, there is overcapacity

in the fish processing industry in this Province. You, Minister, also have said that the

marketplace should be allowed to dictate processing capacity and processors should survive

on their own initiative and business sense.

I ask the minister if it is government's policy to allow processors to

compete independently without any financial assistance or financial support from his

government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister today would confirm or deny that his

government has given approval, or that approval is about to be given, for a guaranteed

loan in excess of $1 million for a fish processor right here in this Province? A

processor, by the way, Mr. Speaker, who paid more money for raw material last year than

their competitors could afford to pay.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I would ask the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, who he is

talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture reads the bills or not, but Bill 11, five processors there who

are guaranteed government loans. On page 7, it says that even the expiry date for one

processor has been struck out altogether and the amount has been raised from $1 million

and substituted by the amount of $2 million. I ask the minister if he is aware of this

Bill 11?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the existing

guaranteed loans that government has on the books. When the hon. member asked the

question, he left an impression that we were giving out a new, a guaranteed loan to a

processor who was paying more for fish in the competitive market.

First of all, the guaranteed loans out there are existing loans that

have been on the books. We are not giving out any more guaranteed loans to any company in

the Province outside of the ones that we have on the books, or any new company that is

asking for it. And as far as these individuals who he says are paying more for crab or

fish prices, that is untrue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the minister's

attention to page 7 of Bill 11. Unless I am reading it wrong, Mr. Speaker, clause 3.(

c) says quite clearly, that the government guaranteed loan has been increased from $1 million

to $2 million.

I ask the minister if he would explain what a government guaranteed

loan is, number one; and, number two, if this is not new money that has been brought

forward in this fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Do I understand from the hon. member, who stood last

night and accused this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of not representing the

people in this Province, not representing the fisherpeople in this Province and rural

Newfoundland, out there not listening and wanting to close down everything that is

happening out there, do I understand now that the hon. member wants to close down the Fogo

Co-operative Society on Fogo Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, all I am saying is that you cannot have

it both ways. You cannot stand here and go about the Province and say that you are not

going to commit any funding to fish processors in this Province.

I ask the minister again if it is his intention of having his

government stay out of the business of fish processing and to allow processors to operate

independently?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the question first.

First of all, this government has not increased the loan guarantee to

the Fogo Island Co-operative beyond its original amount. It was $2 million before and it

was reduced to one; it is back now to two.

I also ask the hon. member: Does he want to go down to Fogo Island and

tell the 3,500 people on Fogo Island they should resettle, they should leave the Island

and get out of the fishing industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the

Minister of Mines and Energy.

About three weeks ago in the House I asked the Premier questions with

respect to a number of proposals that are before government on hydro development on our

small lakes, rivers or streams. The one that comes to mind, that I questioned the Premier

on at that time, was North West River. He indicated at the time that Cabinet had not yet

decided on that proposal but that it would be coming to Cabinet. So I would like to ask

the minister today: Has there been any movement, from government's point of view, in

either rejecting or accepting the private proposal from a private developer to develop the

hydro dams on our own lakes and streams?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know these proposals are going

through the normal process and private operators have spent considerable sums of money.

You cannot cut them off in mid-stream - pardon the pun - but they are, as I understand it,

now before the Department of Environment and Labour going through the normal environmental

assessment processes. When these processes are finished, the minister of course has to

take it before the full Cabinet. I think what the Premier was referring to is, at that

time Cabinet will make a final determination on them.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer certainly leads to

a far bigger and greater question, which is a matter of public policy. Does this

government support the private development of our lakes and streams? For example, does

government support private interests coming in to develop small hydro projects on dams,

lakes or rivers in this Province while yet we have a hydro corporation which is enshrined

and legislated with the responsibility to do that? Does government support private

development, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has put together a Cabinet

committee of a number of ministers, including myself and the Minister of Environment and

Labour, to look at this whole issue; but you have to put it in context, Mr. Speaker. The

Leader of the Opposition makes it sound like all of the lakes, streams and rivers in the

Province are available for hydro development.

Let me tell him, as I have told him before and as I have told members

in the Estimates Committees, there are currently 150 megawatts of clean hydro power

available in the Province. Eighty of those megawatts currently reside with the

corporation, with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with Upper Island Pond and Granite

Canal. The balance of those, roughly 70 megawatts, sit in a limited number of rivers. I

think it is about six rivers. I think of Torrent River, Northwest River, some rivers on

the South Coast. Some of those are currently being assessed.

I say to the hon. member, beyond that, the rivers, lakes and streams,

which in the main are most of the rivers, lakes and streams in the Province, are not

available for hydro development because they do not have that potential to create the

megawatts sufficient enough for the capital markets to support that kind of development.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as per usual, in what is becoming very

transparent in the House, when direct questions are asked there are no direct answers

coming back. The question I asked the minister is: What is government's policy with

respect to the private development of what is left in terms of hydro dams, what is left

for the Province to develop? I understand, and the minister knows I understand, that there

is only about 150 megawatts left to develop on the Island - no question about that - but

the point is this -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, it is not about catching on, Minister. The

Does government support handing over those rivers and streams that are left, that can be

developed, that make up that 150 megawatts? Does he support handing out those developments

to private interests? Or should we move towards Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro developing

it on behalf of all the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again, half of the current

150 megawatts available for clean, efficient, feasible hydro power resides with

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The others went out some years ago for public proposals.

Currently there are private developers looking at the economic and environmental

feasibility of proceeding with these.

Now, is the hon. member seriously saying we should stop those in

midstream and attract the kind of legal liability and pay out potential millions of

dollars from the Treasury, or let the process continue along the course in law, that is

designed in law under the Environmental Act, let it continue? When it is completed, if

there are problems, the Minister of Environment and Labour will take it to Cabinet, and

obviously if there are sufficient problems and sufficient evidence to show that they

should not proceed then they will not proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, handing out million of dollars in

liability would be no new venture for this government, let me assure you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - when we come to Trans City and other ventures, and

more to come.

The point is this. What I am suggesting is that as a party and as a

government, do what we have suggested; cancel all proposals for non-utility generators.

The message should be that if lakes, rivers and streams are about to be developed in this

Province because hydro power is needed, then we should do it ourselves. That is what I am

saying to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: So the public policy issue is this. Do we hand out

regulated monopolies? Because that is what they are, Minister, regulated monopolies, when

you hand out rivers for damming.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: You cannot dam a river more than once. Do we continue

to put out regulated monopolies, or do we protect rivers and streams in this Province for

the people of this Province? That is the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition must have some

very sore parts of his anatomy, because he doesn't know where he stands from day to day.

One day he says: We will give you an answer on the Lower Churchill, the $8 billion

project, the framework that has been laid out, but we are not sure yet, we haven't really

decided whether we are for the Lower Churchill, whether we are for the 40,000 jobs,

whether we are for the $8 billion project inside the Province.

Now he jumps up and espouses a policy that we should cancel all the

rivers. I say to him, if we cancel all the rivers, is your party on record that if we

attract the legal liability and the multi-million dollar lawsuits that could come our way,

that you support that? Tell us where you stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the Lower Churchill, it is my understanding, unless the

minister has a deal to lay on the table today, there are very positive aspects to the

framework agreement. We have neither embraced it nor have we torn it down because

government has yet to sign a deal that is final and binding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member -

MR. E. BYRNE: When they table it in the Legislature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - we will let them know the next day, that is what I

say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The continuance of this spin of information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the -

MR. E. BYRNE: - to suggest in some way, in part or in whole, that

we will not take a stand is (inaudible) wrong, Minister, and you know it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to what this party's

position is on public policy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - with respect to private rivers and (inaudible), I

will ask the minister this. Go home tonight, Minister, get on your Internet, and look up

under our home page and you will see our hydro policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is: Will you support it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not

careful he is going to branding himself, and he is slowly doing it, as `Mr. Wishy-Washy.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: At least, Mr. Speaker, when Lynn Verge was leader you

knew where she stood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Sullivan was leader you knew where

he stood. What we have here is a blob of grey flutter that tries to take every angle. It

is like water, it will find its own mould. You have to stand on your feet and be

responsible. You just cannot spout negatives, spout allegations, unless you tell us where

you stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the -

MR. FUREY: Where do you stand on compensating the eight or ten

companies that could attract legal liability to the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know what the big hurry is over there, Mr.

Speaker. They are in a rush to do a lot of things.

I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Minister of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods today. Two of the most devastating threats to our forest industry

are forest fires and insect infestation. We never know until the year spins around what

will happen with the forest fires, but we do know this year there is an infestation in the

forest with sawfly. We know that we have spent millions of dollars, and I encourage the

minister to spend more, in silviculture, which is a responsible thing to do. When we have

an infestation like this we have to protect our investment.

With respect to Dylox and what we know about it, I would like to ask

the minister: Given the data on this chemical which indicates it becomes most toxic to

other wildlife, particularly when mixed with water, will the minister indicate what steps

are to be taken in the application of this process to reduce that danger?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have submitted our proposal to

Environment for an environmental assessment, and we have had public information sessions

for the last two months, on the West Coast in particular and in Central Newfoundland. We

have provided a great detail of information on this in our registration document. That is

available also for the member.

The permission we have sought from Health Canada through their

management agency for use of this insecticide for the spraying program for this year

outlines a whole range of conditions. Those conditions are available also. It outlines in

its approval how we are to operate. Also, as we go through the environmental assessment

process we may have further conditions attached to it, if it is approved.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt that there have been a lot of concerns raised about

this particular chemical, new to this Province and so on. The United States and Canada

have some different reports on it, talking about the toxicity of that particular chemical.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how much time we have before the spray

program begins, and has the minister considered any other chemicals besides Dylox, and has

he considered any experimental use or controlled method before we go into a full spray

program? That was a concern that was raised.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, since January of this year we have

indicated the problem that we are facing on the West Coast in particular and also in

Central in a smaller area, and we have been evaluating all of the options. One of the

other options is Fenitrothion, a product which has been registered for the sawfly, but we

are, like you said, into the environmental assessment process now. We have been looking at

all of our options and getting all of our homework done trying to deal with this problem

that we have, and it is a serious problem, but we are also very cognizant of the concerns

raised. That is why our officials have been working with officials in Environment and also

with health officials to ensure that whatever we are going to do, that it is the safest

thing possible to do, to deal with the forest problem that we have when it comes to the

infestation. The Health Canada approval that has been given to us is only given based on

certain conditions that you can meet, and right now we are waiting for a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Justice.

If we are to achieve a proper balance in administering justice today,

Minister, we must also pay more attention to the growing body of evidence that tells us

that victim/offender mediation can greatly benefit victims of certain types of crime,

greatly reduce their fear that they will be further victimized, and make it less likely

that the offenders will re-offend. There is a solid and growing body of evidence to show

that these completely voluntary victim/offender mediation programs really do work. So my

question to the minister is: Has you department or has the government taken any concrete

steps to advance victim/offender mediation opportunities in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the whole concept of mediation is a very

fast growing concept, as the hon. member knows. I will need some time to develop this, Mr.

Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, last year we amended the court act whereby we

are extending the Unified Family Court, where we are making mediation available now from -

it used to stop at Holyrood, and this is not specifically where the member is coming from,

but we have extended the Unified Family Court to take in Clarenville and the whole

Bonavista Peninsula area. With the Unified Family Court, of course, mediation is made

available and paid for by the Province where we have expanded the jurisdiction and we have

just proclaimed the legislation not too long ago actually; I think it was yesterday or the

day before.

We are also looking at ways to make it available to other courts in the

Province. It is not practical to expand the Unified Family Court to other parts of the

Province, but we are looking at making mediation services available, Mr. Speaker. We have

not come up with a way to do that. We are looking at several options and are in the

process.

I guess the quick answer to the hon. gentleman's question is, yes, we

are committed to the concept of mediation and we have taken concrete steps in the Unified

Family Court -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. DECKER: - and we certainly support it in the other court system

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to table answers to two questions that were posed in the House

yesterday by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis. While I answered them in part, I did

not have sufficient time to answer them fully so I am tabling the answers to the questions

today in the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Motion 10.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a motion on behalf of the personal care home

operators of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess today we were stymied in some of our

questions in this House. That is very unfortunate. Some of these people travelled a fair

distance to hear some answers and they did not hear them.

Over the past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the annual

general meeting of the personal care home operators of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I was appalled to find out that the Minister of Health and Community Services

did not attend this particular function, but I was more appalled when the person who

turned up from the Department of Health and Community Services could not answer questions

- questions that were asked at last year's annual meeting in Gander, questions that were

asked a year before that in St. John's, and there are still no answers forthcoming. Mr.

Speaker, I think that is wrong. I think it is criminal almost that these people have been

now waiting close to three years to find answers to questions they have asked. They have

been waiting for three years. Some of them are here today, by the way, to find out where

these answers are.

One of the questions is: We have people who live with these people in

personal care homes who receive $900 month; yet the same person in the Hoyles Home or

Escasoni receives some $2,100 a month. Why? People also have now taken patients out of

personal care homes and brought them into their own homes, and I am not talking about

their own families either. I am talking about people who have taken them in. We pay them

more money than we pay the personal care home operators in this Province and we provide

them with money, I say to the minister, to do repairs to their homes.

In one case in my district, Minister, I will just tell you one story of

one person. They came in and looked at the house and said, `Your bathroom should be

bigger'. They had absolutely no problem with doing what they had to do with these two

particular patients, absolutely no problem whatsoever. This government went in and spent,

I think it was close to $5,000 doing repairs in the bathroom. Absolutely ludicrous, Mr.

Speaker, absolutely ludicrous.

When I got elected in 1996, there was a report being prepared then

called the Kirby Report. That report has been done and it has been submitted to

government. I believe that is the second or the third or the fourth report that has been

done on behalf of the home-owners in this Province and nothing, absolutely nothing, has

been done. They have asked the question of Level I and Level II to come into their homes.

What defines a Level I and a Level II? I don't believe they have been given the answer to

that. Is a Level I somebody who can button his shirt and a Level II somebody who cannot?

Is that what we are really going to get into, Minister, I say to you today? Because these

people have concerns and these people's concerns should be addressed.

I think almost every chance I have had in this House since 1996, I have

raised the concerns of home-owners in this Province, not to the present minister but to

the previous minister. I offered to take him with me and drive him around to personal care

homes in my own district to let him see firsthand - if he does not know or he did not

understand - the care and attention that were given to these people in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course that offer was never accepted. I offered to do it

when the House was in session; I offered to do it when the House was not in session. It

made no difference to me, Mr. Speaker, when we did it. All I asked was that it would be

done so that somebody could sit down and not bring messages back to government, but that

the minister could see firsthand exactly what was going on in homes in this Province.

I know some of the members on the other side, and I can look over there

today and say to some of these members that there are people sitting in this gallery from

your districts, and I believe it is time in this House that we stood up for the rights of

the home-owners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That we have not done. If we

had done it, things would be entirely different in their business today. All one had to

do, Mr. Speaker, was on Saturday morning turn up at their annual general meeting and sit

and listen to the total, total frustration of these people who have invested their life

savings into these homes.

I had a call last week from somebody who is not in my district, who has

been in this business for forty years, who received a call from their accountant saying:

If you continue to progress as you are, or you continue to go forward as you are going for

another twelve months, this time next year you will be bankrupt.

I used to hear the former minister say it is the best bang for the

health care buck in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, if it is the best

bang for the buck in health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, why haven't

we compensated these home-owners for it? Why haven't we done that? Because, Mr. Speaker,

we certainly haven't done it. We have gone nowhere close to it. We have probably paid them

lip-service, but that is about it. We have done absolutely nothing for the home-owners in

this Province, because every time there is a question at an annual general meeting, the

answer is, `We will get back to you'. And all of a sudden we are doing an another report,

and another report, and another report. It is an industry in this Province that has been

totally studied to death.

I say to members opposite, to the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne,

some of the those home-owners who are here today are from his district and I believe he

fully knows the plight of the home-owner in his district. There are home-owners here from

the District of Topsail today, and I hope the member fully understands their plight. I

hope he fully understands what these people are going through, the frustrations they are

going through, and the fact that they have been a neglected industry at least since 1996,

since I was elected. Because I have been standing in this House in Budget Debate, and

whenever I have had the opportunity, to speak on personal care homes. I will continue to

do that until this injustice has been rectified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Because, Mr. Speaker, it is an injustice. When I say

that people who are in these galleries today have put their life savings into this

business, I am not kidding. If any member over there thinks I am, when this is over this

afternoon, meet me in the lobby and I will introduce you to people who have put their life

savings into this business. I will introduce you to a man and his wife who are working

seven days a week, fifteen and sixteen hours a day, to try to keep their business afloat.

So if we think this is a joke, it is no joke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Providing a level of care (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Providing a level of care as good as any institution in

this Province. I would challenge anybody in this House to say that level of care has not

been given.

Again, I know members opposite who attended functions that I have

attended, and they have attended functions where those personal care operators have been.

They know of the care and attention that these people have been given.

I watched some years ago as a gentlemen in a personal care home who was

confined to a wheelchair, but loved where he was. I had the opportunity to meet the

gentleman on more than one occasion and he loved the home he was in. But someone figured,

because he was in a wheelchair, he should be out in Hoyles-Escasoni. We took him from a

home that was paid $870 a month, I believe it was at the time, and put him in the Hoyles

Home at over $5,000 a month.

I was not in government then. I asked the question of somebody in the

Department of Health. The person is now gone from the Department of Health, but I do not

have the answer.

MR. EFFORD: You are not in (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, that is right. But I am in this House of Assembly,

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, and if I was in government today, I can assure the

Minister of Fisheries that I would not have to be up talking on this issue because this

issue would have been settled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: This issue would have been settled a long, long time

ago. It would have happened since maybe 1989 even. It should have happened even back then.

This is the most neglected industry in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 1988.

MR. FRENCH: There was a proposal in 1989. As the member remembers,

when they came to power they cancelled that proposal. The member remembers it well. He

should remember it well because that is one of the reasons he got elected, I say to the

member.

It is time that you stood in your place today and defended the people

who are here today. It is time that you got out of your seat and defended the people here

that you were sent here to represent. You can no longer sit in your seat and on your butt

and not defend the people who sent you here! When the day comes that that happens, you

shouldn't be here any longer, I say to the member opposite. You shouldn't be in this House

any longer. If you fail to represent the people who elected you here, you should not be

here! That is what I say to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Is it? Is that right? I don't have to bring myself to

anywhere where that member is, let me tell you.

The issues here today are very clear, very plain. We know what is going

on here today. That is why the home-owners are here today. They are totally frustrated. As

I said, I had the opportunity on Saturday morning to personally attend their annual

meeting, and personally listen to home-owners ask the same questions this year that they

asked last year. That is not untrue. We can meet them after, we can ask them after. They

will tell you they asked the same questions last year in Gander as they asked this

Saturday morning. I attended the meeting with my colleague because there are quite a few

personal care homes in my district. The same questions were asked and the same answer was

given, that they could not answer them.

Now I understand there is another report being done that is called -

Dr. Palfrey, I think it is, something like that, has now done another study. I understand

the report may be now submitted. That is another report on home-owners in this Province.

How many more studies are we going to have to do before somebody gets a message? When I

see a man and his wife who work eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, and their

children are probably filling in when they are out of school to help them out in their

business, that is sad. That is a very sad thing and a very sad day. Some of these

home-owners are down eighteen beds. Again, that is very sad.

If it is the best bang for our health care buck then this is what we

should be doing; we should be helping out the home owners of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

have preached that since 1996, since I have been here as a member. I did it last year, I

did it again this year when I rose in the Budget Debate. I spoke. I always take time to

talk about the home-owners in this Province. When I see the fact of people with

thirty-five and forty years in this business, if it continues at the rate we are going, in

1998 they will be bankrupt. Because they cannot do any more as families than they are

doing, they cannot put any more time into their business than they are putting in.

I ask this House today to immediately intercede on behalf of these

home-owners. I think the time of studying is gone. We had reports before I was elected

here. I think one was called the Doane Raymond. I believe there was another report before

Doane Raymond, the Touche-Ross Report, and then after I got elected there was the Kirby

Report, and I understand Dr. Palfrey is doing another study now. I don't know if it is

finished, but it is now being done.

As I have said here many times, we have an industry that has been

studied to death. The time for studying it is no longer.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney) : Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First thing I would like to say is that I was very disappointed to hear

the comments by the members opposite, about my unavailability to attend the meeting that

was held last week. I think that those people that are in the gallery, that are listening,

will acknowledge the fact that just days after I was appointed as Minister of Health last

year, I flew to Gander to be at the meeting to hear their issues and concerns. They would

also know, and I think that it is important for them to know and also for this House to

know, in fact, that I was out of the Province and came back in time to speak to a national

meeting that I had committed to some eight months prior. I think in all fairness, I see

this issue as a very important issue, one, as I said, I pointed out last year I have

attended. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I have also met with personal home care owners in

the interim.

So, I take great offence to that insinuation. I think the people in the

gallery know differently, and I think it is nothing more, again, than political

grandstanding to reduce this issue to political, when it is so important.

I will further say, Mr. Speaker, that I do believe it is a very serious

issue, and that I did have an official attending the meeting, who has been working very

closely with this group over the last year and who I thought, up until this point in time,

had developed a very solid rapport with those groups of homeowners and operators.

Unfortunately that is not the case, and I will certainly be looking into that.

I think that because of the seriousness of this issue, and because not

only has my official has been very honest with the personal care home-owners but so have

I, when I met with them last year I identified to them that there were many issues

involved in this whole process. This is not a stall tactic, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have

prided myself on trying to have as much information and use all the available evidence

that we need before we make decisions.

It is not a personal care issue, in a sense where it is an isolated

issue. There are about eight issues that are involved in this particular scenario called

`continuing care', and many of those are issues that interact with one another and they

are very important. I think it makes sense that we try to deal with all of them rather

than deal with them piecemeal. I made that point very clear and my intention has been very

clear.

I think for both the Member for Conception bay South and the Member for

Ferryland, who attended the meeting the other night, they would have heard my official

speak to the home-owners in the same regard as I will speak today, and that is that we

have, in fact, since I have been minister, put together a lot of information, including

the Palfey Report which deals specifically with the St. John's area.

We have also done a number of other reports, and I will admit we have

done the reports, and I will also admit that all the reports that I am interested in doing

are completed. They will also know, because they were at the meeting - whether they choose

to remember or not remains to be seen - that we have all of the information gathered and

that information is going to my officials for me to deal with in the very near future.

It covers a whole range of issues, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we are

looking at the issue of unlicensed homes versus licensed homes. We know, in fact, that

there are many concerns out there about homes that are operating. I think that many of the

home-owners have spoken to me personally, some of them off the record, saying that some of

the homes out there are homes that give them concern, in terms of bringing down the

standards which they see as acceptable in delivering personal care home services in the

community. So, that is something that we will be looking at.

We have reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government

Service Centre, between the Department of Health and Community Services and the regional

boards. We know the issues around this are very clear, and that is: When there are

problems arising we need to have a clear path for identifying how these issues will be

resolved. Up until this point that has not been done effectively.

Another issue, of course, is the whole issue that was not raised, but I

think is important to be raised to have on the record. We have so many issues with respect

to personal care homes, as it relate to the beds. We have the occupied beds and the

unoccupied beds. We have the subsidized beds and the non-subsidized beds. We have the

licensed homes and the non-licensed homes. And we have the private payers and we have the

publicly funded payers.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why it is a concern for the Member for

Conception Bay South, particularly, because it is important to note that, in fact, over

half of our whole budget that we put into personal care homes goes to that district and

the district around Paradise. So I can understand how it would be an issue. Over 700 of

the beds there are subsidized. The next highest region with a bed subsidy is 300. So you

do have a big vested interest on behalf of your constituents, and I would look for your

support when we look to doing something that is quite unique in terms of moving from a

subsidized bed model to a personal or resident subsidy, because that will certainly change

the lay of the land in your district, I am sure. What it will do is spread out the number

of client subsidies across the Island, and it would be done more on a basis of client need

as opposed to identifying the beds as it is currently structured. That is certainly one of

the recommendations.

While many personal care home-owners are very supportive of that issue,

many of the ones with the bed subsidies are not that supportive. So we have to find some

common ground in dealing with some of these issues. I speak to this because, I will say

again, it is not a simple issue, it is something that we need to spend the proper amount

of time dealing with.

There are other issues concerning the pension rates and the OAS rates

and how the cost-of-living allowance impacts on those rates for personal care home-owners.

I am quite familiar with those issues and I have been working with my officials. I told

them last year that I would look at that issue and I would deal with it as part of the

complete package, and I will be doing that, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we will be meeting

very soon. We have our meeting dates set down and I have spoken to many of my colleagues,

because I think it is important to note that this issue has been raised by a number of my

colleagues sitting here today who will later speak. This is not an issue that we have not

been paying attention to, but all we will say is we need to have all of the information.

Now one might think we are studied to death but I have to say that our issues in St.

John's are totally different from those that are outside the St. John's area, and many of

the personal care home-owners can attest to that as well.

One of the other areas that we have been looking at is the issue of the

financial reporting. We need to look at, more specifically, as we look at this more

comprehensive approach, the roles of the boards, and also how we can standardize financial

assessments across all of the boards as it relates to long-term care. So I think it is

important that we look at that perspective as well. We are also looking at putting

together an up-to-date personal care home manual which will go to the stakeholders for

review, and I think the stakeholders have been made aware of this because I know I have

spoken with some of them in a meeting that I had with them not too long ago.

Some of the other areas that we are looking at are ways to evaluate,

the type of assessment tools that we are using and also the levels of care. I know that is

a very big issue. How do we identify levels of care? How do we compare levels one and two

to level three? How do we differentiate the cognitively impaired from the physically

needy? Those kinds of issues are very important.

In addition to that, we are also looking at the subsidy and I think

that is something that comes in the full package of what it is we are trying to do. So I

will say very clearly, that some of our main issues are focused around the whole issue of

a bed subsidy versus a client subsidy. Our other issues of main concern are about the

whole issue of the subsidy itself and how that impacts on people who are receiving

pensions, and also on how we do the analysis and assessment of the levels, level one and

level two.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, in our Province we have a number

of subsidized beds. We have not done any subsidized bed allocation since 1994. However, in

the Eastern Region we do have the highest number with 772 subsidized beds. In some areas

of our Province, for example Labrador, we have as low as twenty-two subsidized beds, and I

do know that the needs are greater in certain areas. So one of the things that we are

looking at very clearly is how we are able to address the subsidy issue, moving perhaps

from the bed subsidy to the client subsidy. I look forward to the views, particularly from

the member for that district, as we look in that area.

In light of some of the comments that I have made today, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to move the resolution be amended by striking out the three paragraphs of the

recital and substituting the following:

"WHEREAS personal care home-owner operators provide a valuable

health care service in the Province for many people needing care;

AND

WHEREAS government is cognizant of the valuable service provided by

personal care home operators."

The resolution is further amended by striking out the resolution and

substituting the following:

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House urge the provincial

government to review all aspects of continuing care services, including the question of

subsidy levels for personal care homes."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I submit this amendment for your review.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of

order.

MR. SULLIVAN: I wish to state that the amendment the member has put

forth is not dealing with the specific request in the resolution about granting an

increase. It is dealing with a revisiting. That completely destroys the intent of the

resolution, calling for further debate and study on it, and it defeats the purpose of the

resolution submitted by the Member for Conception Bay South. I ask certainly that the

Speaker rule it out of order on that basis.

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to that point of

order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that what the

amendment says in the resolve is: "Therefore

be it resolved that the House urge the

provincial government to review all aspects of continuing care services, including the

question of subsidy levels for personal care homes."

Mr. Speaker, in regards to the amendment being out of order, I would

submit that the amendment is perfectly in order. If you look at the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I didn't interrupt your House Leader, so just take it

easy. I am talking to the other half of the House Leader, the bottom half of the House

Leader.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

This is a very serious matter. The Chair is trying to determine exactly

what the Government House Leader is saying.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that certain

alterations to the resolution can be carried out. Indeed, you can practically change the

resolution completely. I would submit to you that in this case it does not change the

resolution completely. It just changes certain words of the resolution to make it more

acceptable to the House. That is perfectly in order.

In the meantime, I suspect Your Honour will want to take a few minutes

to look this over and see if it is in order. I suspect he would. Obviously it is up to

you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess for a few minutes to determine

whether or not the amendment is in fact in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

In determining whether the amendment was in order, the Chair referred

to Beauchesne and reviewed the

section dealing with amendments, specifically from ' 567 to

' 579 inclusive, and I would like to draw hon. members' attention to

Section ' 567

which states: "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such

a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition

as an alternative to the original question." That is a quote from Sir Erskine May.

The ruling is that the amendment is acceptable and is in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak on this particular motion now as amended. I might

add it is completely replaced. Certainly, legislatively it may be an admissible amendment,

and I do not debate that point at all, but I can tell you that it has not made it more

acceptable to this side of the House, I can assure you. It certainly put forth a

proposition that is entirely unacceptable to this side of the House. You want to water it

down.

I would like to say to the minister before I start, one particular

point. I am hoping she will hear this. Minister, I want to say for you information, your

director of continuing care came under great praise by people representing the homes for

special care. In fact, very much so, I would say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until now.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not until now. Nobody has ever here in this House

- I have not, and I am sure my colleague has not - taken to task the role that person has

done. She was commended there. I sat there for two hours at that meeting and nobody had...

The frustration, Minister, was that there are people in authority, people with the power

to make decisions - they have been crying on deaf ears for many years and they have not

been heard. That is the problem, I say to the minister, and more studies - refer this back

and review it. I have read more studies on nursing homes. Go back to 1980s from Nycum

studies and you name it. I have read more -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon.

gentlemen in his speech. As a matter of fact, he usually makes a very good speech. The

truth of the matter is, this resolution does not call for more study. It does not call for

any such nonsense. It does not say, review and study.

All this resolution does, as amended, is to say that the minister is

going to take an overall look at this to see where indeed she can help those people in

many areas, as well as at the level of subsidy that is now being put forward. I think that

is what the hon. minister means. There is no call for a study here. As much as the hon.

gentleman might like to leave the belief in the minds of people that there is, there is no

call for a study here, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No point of order.

MR. TULK: There is no point of order, I know that, but I have to

clear that up.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. Government House

Leader was taking advantage of the opportunity to engage in the debate and to add some

clarification.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have limited time here today, fifteen minutes maximum, of which some

has been wasted now on a point of order. I was denied leave this morning to raise some

very important issues that were not spelled out in the resolution that we proposed today.

I had hoped to address in Question Period the scope of things not covered in the

resolution today. I did not have the opportunity to do that, and I want to do it now. I

would like to do it, without interruption on points of order, to raise legitimate points

in the House that I want to get on the record. That is all I am asking.

I had intended to discuss with the minister this morning - I do grant

that my first question did relate to what is on the Order Paper, and I stood again and

wanted to address questions that were not related to it. I am going to touch on both today

now in the minutes I have.

One particular issue I wanted to touch on, the one I started to raise

first, is that I agree on that issue. That particular question I was going to ask could

conflict with the legislative authority here to raise an issue that is coming up for

discussion. I am now going to do it, and I have an opportunity to do it, and I will raise

other issues that are not.

I cannot see, when the minister tells us that the focus today is on the

client, we have to look at everything for the client. I am asking the minister: Why, if

the focus is on the client, do you allow several thousand dollars, in excess of $2,000,

$2,100 and up, more in some cases, to be given to care for people in nursing homes with

Level I care, and in their homes, but you only provide - actually what it amounts to is

about $500 a month, when you look at the total number of subsidized beds, and almost $7

million roughly provided for it. Why are you only allowing, out of government funding, an

average of $500 per month for those homes for the special care when you are allowing

$2,000 to $3,000 and $4,000 in instances here for the same Level I people in other

facilities or other locations in the Province?

If it is a client-focused thing, you should not be discriminated on the

virtue of where a person is residing if you are going to base it on the type of care they

need. That is a discriminatory measure that has been going on here for a number of years.

Since 1989 - I can speak since 1992, since I have been in this House, that has not been

rectified, I say to the minister.

I will tell you what has happened since that time. In 1994 I stood, in

Estimates, and asked the minister and her staff - or his staff at the time - the question:

How many subsidized beds are in the Province? Minister, in 1994 there were 1,346

subsidized beds in the Province. Today, 1,100 is the figure given me by your department in

this area. You told me 1,100. That is a question I asked on Saturday at the meeting; 635

for over sixty-five, 465 for people under sixty-five.

If that is the case - an important issue, I say to the minister - the

need for care for elderly people is increasing with an aging population. Why have you

allowed the number of subsidised beds - when homes go out of business because of nothing

done by government in action for a number of years, why have you pulled 250 subsidized

beds out of the system since 1994, almost 20 per cent of the subsidized beds that were in

the system? That is not caring for people, I say to the minister. That is a cost-cutting

measure that is depriving people of an opportunity to get the care they need, and forcing

people out of business.

While this was happening, I say to the minister, you let go

uncontrolled the licensing of licensed and unlicensed homes in the Province. That drove

the vacancy rate up so high that these people are struggling with their lifetime of

earnings and it is forcing them out of business. Those are some of the problems we are

experiencing. And, Minister, while that is going on here we have close to 100 people at

times who are discharged from hospitals here in this Province, occupying hospital beds -

and I speak with the Health Care Corporation, I get numbers, I keep a general check on

numbers that are in locations - costing, I might say to my colleagues, costing $500 to

$795 a day if they are at the Health Sciences. In the run of a year it is costing up to

$250,000 to keep people in those facilities who are medically discharged; and while you do

that you have nursing homes that have Level I people here, Level I people who are paying

the whole bill.

Hoyles-Escasoni will cost an average of $5,000 a month, about $60,000 a

year, not counting the capital cost that drives it up to around $100,000 a person. And you

put people out into a home for the special care with an old age security level cheque -

you get 110 and you subsidize a portion of that - and in the last few years as they got

increases, you clawed back increases for years - the few little measly dollar increases on

their old age security - and would not provide it to the people who were struggling with

high vacancy rates or at the point of bankruptcy. People have gone that route already.

They have gone out of business, they cannot operate, and other people are out there today

in the same situation.

Minister, you have lost your focus of caring for people. Personal care

homes and caring for people is not a business like selling candy in the corner store. It

is not a business like selling cars or any other thing. It is not a commodity out there

that you auction off to the lowest bidder. It is a service provided to people in this

Province who need a certain care and certain service.

I have been in many homes for the special care, or personal care homes

as we have called them in my district. I have had an opportunity. I know people in some of

those homes and the owner gives them his clothes, his shirts and so on for these people to

wear. That is what they use. They pass on clothes and other things to them because they

are on such a meagre subsistence, I call it, in trying to survive.

They are cut to the bone, I say to the minister. All we are doing is

just waiting and hoping, I suppose. If you let it go for another while there won't be a

subsidized bed left in this Province. We have lost 250 now. I mean, we are on a downward

slide. The minister said that is right. If that is the case, we have to look at: Do we

auction off care for our people to the lowest bidder? The minister is going to introduce a

bill that is going to eliminate private clinics and private operations, and then she is

turning around and we are going to auction off our people to care for them to the lowest

bidder? That is nonsense, that is hypocrisy, it is speaking out of both sides of your

mouth at the one time.

The minister talks about getting in all available evidence. Look,

Minister, we have been studied from Nycum studies; I have read studies on nursing homes

here. Companies come in from (inaudible). We have gone through the gamut. I have up in my

office volumes, look, that thick, on reports on the whole analysis, and what happens?

Nothing happens. We buy more time. We get frustrated.

I mean, there is a revolving door almost in the health department now;

we get new personnel in and out. That is part of the process, I know, a revolving door,

almost all new people, start over again, look at it again. People cannot wait forever. If

that is the deliberate attempt, what they are intending to do, the minister should have

stood in her place and said: Our intent is to eliminate them altogether. Get up and tell

the truth about it, come out and say what it is, not bleeding them to death slowly, I

might say to the minister.

There are questions I wanted to address today. Are there going to be

controls on licensing? Is it a free-for-all out there today? What happens with unlicensed

homes? What happens overall with care for our people in the Province is the ultimate

concern. I have read some interesting books. One, I think, was Limits on Care , a

very authoritative study done, I read last year. I have it in my office. A very lengthy

700- or 800-page book. It looks at the aspects of caring for our people today in our

society and in the future.

We have today people in a different situation. We have today many young

people and young families who have gone out of this Province, they have gone to get work

elsewhere. Many of these people don't have families to look after them any more. Normally

you had large families in rural communities or urban areas, and you could care for your

parents or family members. Today 90 per cent of many of the people in certain families are

out of this Province working. All they have left here are their parents, and maybe one or

two people who are stressed to the limits and cannot cope with it.

We have seen, and my colleague mentioned, people taken out of those

homes and put in a nursing home. The average cost, I might add, of Hoyles-Escasoni is

about $5,000 a month operational costs to keep people in that home. A government funded,

100 per cent funded, home. Actually, back in 1994, in the Estimates there, there were

1,346 subsidized beds in this Province costing this Province $3.124 million, an average

cost of $23,064 a bed. Two hundred dollars a month was the average cost then. We got 50

per cent paid by the federal government. It would have been over $6 million. Right now

that is cut out. We don't get shared programs any more. There is a lump sum. The Canada

Health and Social Transfer has downloaded costs on the Province.

The same Premier who was a part of the government that introduced that,

he set the plan to take us from $427 million that we received when he was our federal

minister, just before it, in transfers to this Province on health, post-secondary

education, and social services. When he was finished with his plan we were getting $272

million, $155 million less, and it would have gone to $230 million except for the federal

election, they were in trouble last year, and they froze that floor and wouldn't put it

any farther.

That is who you are robbing, the people out there. Robbing the people

caring for our elderly out in these homes - that paid the price. The average of $200 a

month in 1994 to this Province, when a bed in a nursing home was $5,000. I have the list

on every one. I obtained figures a couple of years ago. For instance, the cheapest was in

the vicinity of $3,000 a month at Glenbrook Lodge, right up to $50-some hundred a month. I

mean, $60,000 a year, not counting the cost of the building.

They have to maintain their building, have to pay their workers, have

to look after repairs, have to provide services and care for people. What happens when you

cut back and don't provide the resources? People go bankrupt and out of business, or

people have to suffer in the process. They are not getting the sufficient funding, I will

say, and it is about time this government started to realize that all we are doing is

turning over wheels.

The minister gets up here today in this House and says: The House urge

the provincial government to review all aspects of continuing care service including the

question of subsidy levels for personal care homes.

I mean, Minister, I know some of the problems out there as well as you.

You made reference to some that - I sat there in the meeting on Saturday, and I would have

liked to stay there all day except I had another commitment. I managed to get there for a

couple of hours, two-and-a-half hours actually altogether, I say to the minister, and I

spoke with - they were willing to change to accommodate the minister, and someone from the

department had sent a director who is doing a good job in the eyes of these people out

there who have to bear the brunt of the frustrations of people out there today. It should

be done by the minister. The minister should be the one to hear their concerns.

We know licensed homes is one of the issues. We know the rates and the

OAS and the GIS, we are familiar with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, to make up for the minute or two I lost

there on points of order?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: About a minute or so on the point of order. I lost a

minute or two, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, but he took my time away. You would not allow

it in Question Period. All I am asking for is leave to speak for another minute or two. I

am just asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, okay.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The need to standardize financial assessments and those things, we are

familiar with all these concerns, long-term care, classifying care. Look, these are

ongoing issues that have been going on forever, and there will always be changes, but I

can tell you the people out here providing the care now are not always going to be around

unless something is done immediately to address this problem. All we have here in a

resolution today - an amendment he threw out there today - to review it again. That is the

last thing we wanted to hear today was a review, and for the minister to stand up and

propose to go and review all those things.

That is an ongoing job for that minister anyway, and the previous... I

have been in this House for six years and I have raised this issue. It has come up by my

colleague on many occasions, we have addressed it there, and it still has not been

addressed today. That is unfortunate now with homes gone out of business since, and other

people on the brink, and the minister will not take immediate action to correct it. She is

going to let them die a slow death. That is basically what we are hearing here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose there is not much I can say in opposition to what my

colleague from Conception Bay South has said, and I do not think too many members on this

side of the House would disagree.

I am not an expert on community care or health care but I am somewhat

familiar with the situation that exists in my district and in the District of Conception

Bay South. I should be. I know we have the largest concentration of community care beds in

the Province, and I know the frustrations that these operators are having, and nobody on

this side of the House is going to or should deny that we are getting the best bang for

our dollar in health care with the community care homes.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that a number of studies have been done, and

we can understand the frustration of these operators. My hon. colleague opposite said that

some of them have invested their life savings into these particular operations and are

doing an excellent job, and people are questioning why the discrepancy between the amount

they get paid in a subsidy and what they get in a nursing home. The type of care may be

different but the quality, I can guarantee you, in these community care homes is one of

the best.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had some words back and forth this evening

about the wording of the resolution. Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, the wording of the

resolution is not so important. What is important, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is important?

MR. WISEMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you why the amendment

was done, why I feel it should have been done - I guess probably the tone in which the

first one was written. I do not sit, Mr. Speaker, on the opposite side of the House, I sit

on the government side of the House. I make no bones about it, that I have made

representation to the minister and I have received complaints from home care operators in

my district. I am assured by the minister, Mr. Speaker, and she has said so today, that

there is a coordinated approach. She said very clearly that when you change one service in

continuing care it has an impact upon another service.

She assures me that we are, and I know that we are, client focused. I

hope, as she said in June, that the review will be done, Mr. Speaker. Well, that is what

the minister has said, that all the reports are ready to be reviewed in June and she will

then make some sort of decision into how she can provide a better service, I guess, to the

clients that she represents.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to deny that this issue has been around

for some time, and nobody is going to deny that when this government changed in 1989, that

we too were faced with a lot of problems; and there are a lot of problems in this

Province. I do not mind saying, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of things have changed and a lot

of things have been done. There will always be things that need changing and things that

need fixing. I believe that this government is equal to the challenge.

Somebody said today about my colleague opposite, about the

grandstanding. Well, I tell you, if I was on that side of the House I would be

grandstanding too. I can understand where they come from, because that is part of the

process, Mr. Speaker, it is part of the process of their bringing their concerns here to

this government. We as a government, Mr. Speaker, I believe are responsible enough that we

will deal with these issues.

Now, I understand the subsidy is $900 a month, Mr. Speaker, and we all

understand that the increase in costs to these people, while they try to continue to

provide excellent services to the clients that they have - we can all understand, Mr.

Speaker, the trauma that these operators are in, when they have vacancies and they have

beds that are unoccupied, but they still have a home to manage. We all realize that, Mr.

Speaker, on this side of the House, and I am sure that this government will deal with it.

I think the timing of bringing in this resolution is very appropriate.

We have heard time and time again that everything is studied to death,

and I believe that there is a time when you have to stop studying, because then we are

studying the study. So, when we stop studying, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this government

is a government of action.

Now, I understand the members opposite laughing, because they never had

the opportunity to sit on this side of the House and to make a decision. They never had an

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to sit down and put together a Budget that would try, in some

way, to address all the issues that this Province has. And I can understand your

behaviour, because that is the way that oppositions should behave, I guess, in a sense

that you have to bring the issue forward.

The result, Mr. Speaker, is what is important. If this government can

do better than what they are doing, then we should do it and we should do it

expeditiously. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this capable minister, a very capable

minister, will deal with these issues. I would not put my knowledge up against the hon.

member's knowledge. These are the kinds of people, Mr. Speaker, that we need in

government, people with the ability, people with the knowledge of the system and people

who have had hands-on in health care in this Province.

Now I know, members opposite, it is sometimes pretty difficult to

listen to somebody who is saying something nice about an individual who has a very

difficult job to do, Mr. Speaker, a very difficult job to do. We can carry on and act like

children all we want but, Mr. Speaker, it does not solve the problem of the personal care

homes, the community care homes. It does not solve it. But if we, as a government, are

going to search to find the way - because we have already recognized the need. We know

there is a need and to eliminate that need, Mr. Speaker, is not going to take words. Words

are not going to eliminate the need that these people have. It is all tied to dollars and

cents. That is what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker. Can we, as a government, find the dollars

and cents necessary to help these people with the problem?

The real help, Mr. Speaker, is going to the client because I know that

these personal care home operators will do their best and are doing their best, in spite

of the circumstances that they find themselves in. It is true, Mr. Speaker - there is no

doubt about it - they are frustrated. I would be frustrated. If I were in their position,

I would be frustrated. There is not much point, Mr. Speaker, in saying that we would not

be, because if I stood in this House and said that it is not a problem, it is fine, it is

adequate, then, Mr. Speaker, I would be a fool. I agree with anybody in this House who

would call me a fool because that is exactly what I would be, a fool.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government will address this issue,

but the minister has said that she wants to review the issue in totality, that if you make

a change in one end of health care it affects the whole of health care. In her own words,

Mr. Speaker, she is now ready, within the next few weeks - I should not say a few, in the

next three or four weeks - to review all the information that has been assembled. Mr.

Speaker, I should not say all the information either, because if they include the reports

that have been done by the community care homes then we would have quite a stack.

This government, Mr. Speaker, I believe is responsible to the people of

this Province and we should be. We should make every effort to do what we can do. Mr.

Speaker, it was only yesterday that we changed the National Child Care Benefit Program

where the claw backs were taking place of those people on social services, those who have

the greatest need. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are just as human as people

on the other side of the House. We who are sitting here come from a variety of

backgrounds. We were born like everyone else, we were raised by a mother and father, we

went to school and we felt all the pain that everybody else felt. Some of us have been in

business. I spent fourteen years in business, Mr, Speaker, and I know what its like to

operate a business here in Newfoundland; and these people, community care home-owners,

operate a business. It is a business, Mr. Speaker, and they have been in difficult times.

It is time that we took a look, in the most serious way, at how we can help the people in

the personal care home industry.

As I have said on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, I believe that

this Minister of Health and Community Services will review, over the next three or four

weeks, all the information that she has asked to be assembled so that she can make a

responsible decision. Because that is what it is all about. It is no good for us, as a

government, to make a decision on a whim, to find out later that we have more problems

down the road.

This issue has been an issue, in my recollection, since I came here as

an Executive Assistant to a former member in 1989. It was an issue then and it is an issue

now. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is time to address the issue in totality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the people from the personal care homes who are

sitting in the visitors gallery today - and I am pleased to see them there - could speak,

they would agree with what I am saying, that the time has come to take a look at this

issue, to deal with it, and let's do it in the best possible way that we can. I am not

going to argue with the Opposition House Leader that it is overdue.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things in this Province that are overdue,

many, many things, but we have said as a government, Mr. Speaker, that we would

concentrate our efforts not on mega projects. This Budget this year, Mr. Speaker, is

concentrating on health, education and social services. That is what this government did,

Mr. Speaker. We have shifted the focus, Mr. Speaker.

Now I know, Mr. Speaker, that some members opposite may be disappointed

because we shifted the focus, because I recall, back in the '80s, that all we talked about

was oil, oil, oil. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, there were three elections

called on oil, but there was no mention of the devastation that was happening in the

fisheries, none. Mr. Speaker, when we look back, when this government came in in 1989 and

the problems that we faced, and the 1992 closure of the cod fishery, I believe that this

Liberal Government has done well in managing this Province, in spite of all the

negativity. None of us in this House will live long enough to solve all the problems that

this Province faces, but we are well on the way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to the minister's review in the next three or four

weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments with respect to the resolution

which was put forward by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, and why I was

prepared to support and endorse the resolution as put forward, and why I am not prepared

to support the amendment. They are two entirely different resolutions in my opinion.

The resolution, as put forward by my colleague, is a resolution of

commitment and it is a resolution of action. The distinction in this resolution and the

wording of the amendment, as put forward by members opposite, Mr. Speaker, is that it is

once again a resolution of assessment, a resolution of review, a resolution of further

study.

I say, on behalf of home-owners, personal care owners in this Province,

they have had enough of review, they have had enough of assessment, and they have had

enough of study. What they want and what they duly well expect from their government is

commitment and action. So that is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against that amendment

because it is contrary to the spirit of the resolution as put forward by my colleague, the

Member for Conception Bay South, who was prepared in his resolution to put this government

and the members of this government, in particular the ministers of this government, and

more particularly the Minister of Health and Community Services, to put them to the

challenge to say we have had enough of study, we have had enough of review, we have had

enough of assessment. On behalf of the home-owners, the personal care home-owners of this

Province, we now want to say to them we will act on your behalf. We will do what is

necessary to further your cause and to help your particular business interests and in

doing that, to help those people who are residents of their particular homes.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, I will be voting against the

amendment. It is contrary to the spirit of the resolution as put forward by the Member for

Conception Bay South. It is an affront, I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the personal care

home-owners and to those residents who live within these homes because once again

government is saying: We will not tend to their needs. Once again government is saying: We

don't care. We will put it on the back burner. We will review it further. We will study

and analyze it to death. It is once again saying to these people, the many hundreds of

people who are involved in this industry in our Province, that this government is saying

it is not a priority. It is not an issue which needs attention immediately, therefore

let's study it further. I say that is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. That is a personal affront

to every personal care owner and worker in this Province. I will stand proudly to vote

against the amendment that has been put forward by members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a request. The Member

for Ferryland made some comments during his speech that the minister wanted to reply to, I

wonder if I could have leave from the House to allow her the time, out of my time, to be

able to respond to the statements that the Member for Ferryland made? Do I have leave to

do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister had fifteen minutes. I wanted leave for her to answer

questions this morning. To get up a second time: Only the mover has the authority to do

that and we are not giving leave for it. She had an opportunity to say what she had to say

and sat down. We would have given her leave at that time but not to come back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you scared of the answers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague, the Member for

Harbour Main - Whitbourne, has asked for is that there were a number of questions that the

Opposition supposedly raised with a great deal of sincerity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, I think they did raise them with a great deal of

sincerity. Mr. Speaker, the person who is obviously most capable of answering those

questions from this side of the House is the Minister of Health and Community Services, or

at least, Mr. Speaker, she should be.

Now, Mr. Speaker, she can't stand up again. She can't stand up again -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: So it is about politics.

MR. TULK: So the hon. gentleman is saying: Will the House give me

leave? Would the House allow me to give my time to the member so that she can answer the

questions? Now, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman did this afternoon was completely out

of order and he knows it. He should not get over there and play with such a vital issue

because he got turned down this afternoon himself.

He should, Mr. Speaker, if he wants answers for the people who

obviously want them - I say this to him in all sincerity - he should allow the hon.

gentleman to give up his time. Otherwise the hon. gentleman is obviously going to have to

speak and try to answer the questions as best he can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The question was asked by the Member for

Harbour Main - Whitbourne, whether or not the Opposition would grant leave to the Minister

of Health to answer some questions put forward in the debate by the Opposition House

Leader. The Opposition will not grant leave, and I recognize the Member for Harbour Main -

Whitbourne.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate the Opposition did not see fit to allow the minister

to respond to some of the questions that were raised by the Member for Ferryland. I am

sure, as the Government House Leader mentioned earlier, the questions were answered in all

sincerity; at least I thought they were, and the minister thought they were. I graciously

gave up the few minutes needed to respond to the questions, and it is unfortunate that

they are continuing to play politics with this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. It is very

disturbing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WHELAN: It is unfortunate. They are playing to the gallery.

They are making as much out of this as they possibly can and I -

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have proceedings here in this House

to be followed, that we have alternating speakers for fifteen minutes. The speaker has

spoken once, I say to the hon. minister. She had an opportunity to say what she wanted to

say at that time and she has spoken. To imply that we are playing politics with an issue

when the government played politics with it all day long.

We want to hear from the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne and any

other speakers they want us to hear from. We will wait here until 12:00 tonight and listen

to them, if they want to, but we are not going to break the rules of the House when it

suits that side of the House to do it. We will abide by the rules we agreed to here in

this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order put forward by the Opposition

House Leader, there is no point of order. The Chair is following the rules set down for

Private Member's Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Are you rising on another point of order?

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentleman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: We understand, and there is a procedure in this House

whereby the hon. gentleman, if he wanted to, could grant leave. He refuses to grant leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: So did you.

MR. TULK: No, I did not. I just asked the hon. gentleman to follow

the rules of the House. He did not ask for leave to ask the questions. I just asked him to

follow the rules of the House because he had a chance this afternoon to debate it.

The truth of the matter is, the hon. gentleman has used the procedure

to stop the Minister of Health from answering the questions. It is perfectly legitimate

for him to do that, there is no harm in it, but that is what he has done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly delighted to be able to speak to this particular issue

today. I think it is a pressing issue, one that I have had great concern about ever since

I have been elected.

I was a bit disappointed when the Member for Conception Bay South

alluded to the fact, or made insinuations, that I was somehow to blame for the plight of

the personal care home-owners. I thought more of him than that, but be that as it may.

I have grave concerns for the guests of the personal care home

operators as well as the home operators themselves. I know that all the homes in my area

certainly provide adequate care. Most of them provide care that is over and above the call

of adequate facilities or adequate living conditions. They have superb living conditions.

They certainly reinvest in their homes. They have been involved in this business for many

numbers of years. As was stated earlier, many of them have invested their life savings.

So it behooves me to get up today and certainly defend the personal

home operators in my area. I realize they are providing a service that, there is no doubt

in my mind, certainly is one of the best values that we are getting for our dollar in

government today.

Down through the years, the level of care in the homes has had cause

for review. A number of things that happened back in the 1970s caused government to have a

look at it and say: Look, you have to raise your standards. They were getting X number of

dollars. They raised their standards, and I do not think the financial situation they are

involved with today, or that they realize today