May

7, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 23

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the House would like to welcome Mayor Tom O'Brien, from the Town of

Stephenville, who is joining us in the Speaker's gallery.

The Chair would also like to recognize again the presence of a delegation

from the Nunatsiavut Government. With the Clerk and the Speaker today is the

Deputy Speaker, Mr. Daniel Pottle.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Members' statements today are from: the hon. the Member

for the District of St. John's West; the hon. the Member for the District of

Labrador West; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand

Falls-Windsor-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; and,

the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's

West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand today to remember a little boy who has

had a profound effect on the lives of all us who were privileged to have known

him. I refer to him as a little boy because, even though he was nineteen years

of age, he was just a little boy.

Johnny Penney was born on February 12, 1989, with a severe case of a rare

syndrome known as Trisomy 18, whereby each of his cells had an extra

chromosome which affected his growth and development. Johnny could not speak but

he certainly could communicate and did so regularly with the most captivating

smile. Columnist Stephanie Porter, in a recent tribute, phrased it perfectly:

"Even at 19, he was never more than an armful, barely reaching 40 pounds.

He couldn't walk or talk; most of his feeding had to be done through a tube in

his stomach. But his thick black eyelashes framed eyes that were alert and

engaging; and he had a smile that captured many a heart."

Johnny's mother, Colleen Fitzpatrick, was told when he was born that he

would live for no longer than a week to ten days, but Johnny was determined to

prove otherwise. In February, more than 100 people, including family, friends

and classmates from the DD Unit at St. Matthew's School, where he had attended

for thirteen years, gathered with him to celebrate his nineteenth birthday.

On February 29, 2008, just seventeen days after his birthday, Johnny took his

place with the angels.

For me, like so many others, it was a privilege and a pleasure to have known

Johnny Penney and to have been greeted so many times by his beautiful smile.

I ask all hon. Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in offering

sincerest condolences to his family and all those whose lives he touched.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday past, the Town of Labrador City and the

Labrador City Recreation Commission hosted their thirty-forth Annual Volunteer

Appreciation Evening to honour its volunteers and athletes. I was proud to

attend and bring greetings on behalf of our government.

Volunteer awards were presented in a number of categories. The overall

Volunteer of the Year Award was presented to Helen Hartery for her many

activities including MADD, Safe Grad, Canadian Cancer Society, and the Labrador

West Music Festival.

Ten-Year Service Awards were presented to Jane Anthony of the Canadian Ski

Patrol, Effie George and Nina Burford of the Labrador West Craft Guild, and

Daphne Casmey and Madeline Flynn from the Carol Curling Club. Renee Edwards was

chosen as Executive of the Year for her outstanding work at the Carol Curling

Club.

The Builder's awards were presented to John Angel and Mac Bradbury for

their many years of service to numerous community organizations.

Athletic awards were also presented for a number of categories. The senior

female athlete of the year went to Kim Burt for her great success at every level

of soccer. Taylor Ryan was selected junior female athlete of the year for her

accomplishments in soccer and gymnastics. Kyle Power was chosen junior male

athlete of the year, he excelled in cross-country skiing at the local and

provincial levels.

Rising star awards for under twelve-year-olds went to Jessica Hickey and

Brandon Hillier, mainly for their skills in hockey. Special accomplishment

awards were presented to Joyce Nichols for Curling and to Kirk Pike and Barry

Edwards for Masters' soccer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all the

volunteers and the athletes for their dedication and accomplishments over the

past year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand

Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to pay tribute to the students and staff of Lakeside

Academy in Buchans on the successful completion of the ninth annual Schoolstock.

Schoolstock is the brainchild of Lakeside's Principal, Mr. Bernard Woodfine

and was originally designed to raise school spirit while providing a showcase

for young musicians to display their musical talents. Originally, the theme was

of a Rock-Folk flavour, but it has since expanded to include all genres of

music. The first year there were four schools represented, with a total of

twelve acts. This year the event has grown to accommodate twelve schools from

throughout the district and an amazing thirty-three acts consisting of 100

performers. To date, Schoolstock has had over 1,200 performers.

Considering that the population of Lakeside Academy from K to Grade 12 is

only ninety students, this is truly an amazing accomplishment.

Schoolstock is officially recognized as the one-of-a-kind, all day non-stop

musical event in Canada and has certainly become the signature event, not only

for Lakeside Academy, but also for the communities of Buchans, Buchans Junction

and Millertown. Officially sponsored by Music Newfoundland-Labrador, Executive

Director, Denis Parker regularly attends the extravaganza, scouting out the

local talent and offering advice and encouragement to all participants. This

year, Mr. Parker surprised the audience with an impromptu performance with Mick

Davis of the Novaks one of the rising stars on Canada's music scene. In

addition to providing performance opportunities for the participants,

Schoolstock also offers workshops from some of our premier Newfoundland artists

and teachers.

I encourage members to visit the school's Web site at

www.k12.nf.ca/lakeside to view photos of Schoolstock 08, and I ask all members

in this hon. House to join me in congratulating all those involved in

organizing, hosting, and performing in Schoolstock.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to the

Tricentia Grade 9 and under boys' team for winning the gold medal at the

invitational basketball tournament.

The tournament took place over a two day period from April 4 to April 5, with

five participating teams. It is with no doubt that the Tricentia Timber Wolves

took advantage of their home court when defeating Balbo Elementary in the final.

Player of the Game awards went to players from each team. Those who received

this award from Tricentia were Nick Berkshire, Tyler Lockyer, Matthew Leonard,

Andrew Whiffen, and Nathan Ploughman.

I ask that my colleagues in this great hon. House join me in extending a job

well done to the gold medalists of the Tricentia basketball team.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 19, at this year's Charter Night of the Conception Bay South Lions

Club, a well-known veteran's advocate, Mr. John Scott, was named Citizen of

the Year for 2007.

Mr. Speaker, John Scott served in the Canadian Forces from 1956 to 1977.

During his time in the military, he served in most armour regiments across

Canada. John also served with the UN in Cyprus and throughout Europe. He has

given freely of his time to spend with parents of these soldiers who paid the

ultimate sacrifice serving their country, to comfort them and provide special

care during their time of need.

He also provided assistance to Afghanistan veterans from CBS who have

returned home wounded in both body and mind. John has taken it upon himself to

identify every person from the Town of Conception Bay South who served his or

her country and is now laid to rest in one of our fifteen cemeteries. He has

identified the gravesite of each of these veterans with an iron cross, which

John has made and personally placed at the head of the resting place. On each

grave, he has also placed a flag representing the country which each veteran has

served.

Mr. Speaker, John is an active member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch

50, he presently serves on the Conception Bay South Monument of Honour Committee

and is involved with fundraising for this project, and because of his efforts,

significant progress has been made.

John was nominated by a fellow veteran and Chair of the Monument Committee,

Mr. Wayne Miller, who served with John in the Canadian Military.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr.

John Scott on being selected Citizen of the Year for 2007 for the Town of

Conception Bay South.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this hon. House of a successful

employment transitions program offered within the Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment, or HRLE as we are affectionately known, to help single

parents in receipt of income support find and secure employment.

In 2006, HRLE piloted the program in the Corner Brook area. We are also an

active partner with the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland, in support of

their successful program in the St. John's and Conception Bay North areas.

The employment transitions program, Mr. Speaker, enables groups of

approximately fifteen single parents to participate in a twelve-week curriculum.

They receive sessions on career planning, job readiness, job maintenance and

life skills, and individualized counselling support. The participants also

receive an earned income supplement.

Mr. Speaker, the program has proven to be highly successful. Between March

2006 and November 2007, sixty-five single parents participated in the Corner

Brook area with 80 per cent going on to work or post-secondary training after

completion of the program.

This demonstrates the importance of putting an expanded program in place

given the positive impact on the participant's quality of life. It also helps

meet the labour needs of our employers. As part of the $9.6 million in the new

Budget 2008, under our Poverty Reduction Strategy Initiatives, our government is

making a further investment of $128,000 this year to support this worthwhile and

positive program.

One participant expressed interest in securing work with the post office, Mr.

Speaker. As a result of her involvement in the program, she secured a job with a

post office outlet located in a drugstore. The employer, recognizing her

potential, provided her with the financial support necessary to enable the

individual to receive formal training as a pharmacy technician, leading to a

supervisory role within the drug store. Another participant was drawn to

employment within the retail sector. She found work at a gift store and since

that point has progressed to a management position within the company.

Mr. Speaker, there are many success stories equally worthy of mention, but

the point is clear. When we help people identify the possibilities, explore the

opportunities, and then find and secure meaningful work, their dreams turn into

goals and successful outcomes become their reality. The provincial government is

committed to helping people overcome barriers to employment and make a

successful long-term attachment and transition to greater self-reliance in today's

labour market.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement, and to say

we agree full-heartedly and acknowledge the success of this particular program

and others similar.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that he mentioned the Conception Bay North

area, because I know of many programs that have proven very successful - and to

know that those young ladies are able to go in and get additional training and

move on and have successful lives for themselves.

I know of a particular case myself where two young girls, sisters, were in

the system, went on to college and became Registered Nurses. I guess my story is

not as successful as yours because the two of them unfortunately had to leave

the Province. Hopefully they will come back - we are looking for nurses -

because two of them did become nurses.

I have to say, it is an excellent program and it is good to see additional

funding going into the program. It benefits our economy, it helps people move on

with their lives, and I want to say that we full-heartedly agree with the

program.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have this statement, as well, and I thank the minister for

the advance copy.

I am aware of the program going right back to when it was here in the St.

John's area, and I know that it is a successful program. I think it would be

wonderful if this program were available everywhere in the Province. We know it

works. I do not think it needs to be piloted any more. I think it can fly, and I

would encourage the minister, through his department, to find a way to do that,

whether or not there is a community partnership available. You could have a

community where there is no group who could actually partner, but I still think

there should be a way found to make the program available.

I would like to point out, though, that I would like the government and

sister department of the ministers to think about the need also for more child

care spaces in this Province, because many of the women doing this are single

parents and these women need child care, and we do not have enough child care

spaces. I think we need these two programs to go together, if these women are

really going to be successful with their employment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge a milestone in the history of

filmmaking in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Down to the Dirt , a film which was written, directed and produced in this

Province, will be featured at the sixty-first Cannes Film Festival as part of

Telefilm Canada's Perspective Canada screening series. It is one of

only ten Canadian films to be selected for this series.

Down to the Dirt is based on a novel by local author, actor and

playwright, Joel Hynes, who also stars in the film. I had the pleasure this past

weekend of joining acclaimed filmmaker Gerry Rogers in presenting Mr. Hynes with

the Artist of the Year Award at the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Arts

Awards. I take this opportunity to congratulate him once again, and to further

extend sincere congratulations to the film's producer, Anna Petras, and

director Jason Simms, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Sherry White.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first Newfoundland and Labrador feature film to

screen during the Cannes Film Festival ten-day film marketing event, the March

du Film . Down to the Dirt will screen twice during that May 1423

event, which is attended by about 10,500 market participants, 3,000 members of

the press, and another 20,000 exhibitors, filmmakers, celebrities and film buffs

from around the world.

This will be incredible exposure for this film, these filmmakers, and for the

Newfoundland and Labrador film industry.

The inclusion of Down to the Dirt at this prestigious international

festival speaks to the talent and creativity of our artists and, just as

importantly, to the further potential of this emerging industry in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the important social and economic

contribution that the local film industry brings to the Province. We are pleased

to provide support for this particular film, and for the marketing effort in

Cannes.

Since 2003-2004, local film production activity has averaged about $10

million annually. Cultural industries employ about 7,000 people throughout the

Province and generate about $400 million to the local economy each year.

We believe the film industry will grow, and, the more we do, the more we

develop a skilled group of professional people - from filmmakers to set

designers, to costume designers, carpenters and more - to sustain the industry

into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister providing me with an advance copy of his statement.

I guess we have a fairly good history now in the Province in terms of

contributions to the film industry, going back to - I do believe the first one

was The Rowdyman , and of course we have had Orca , Random

Passage , The Shipping News , Rare Birds , so we have quite a

history being built up in terms of the Province helping out with film production

here in the Province.

I would certainly like, and the Opposition members as well would like, to

congratulate Mr. Hynes on being Artist of the Year. Not only is he involved in

this film, I understand he also contributes a lot of time to other activities

besides filmmaking. For example, he recently did a writing workshop at Her

Majesty's Penitentiary, not funded by Justice but funded by Arts Council, I do

believe. So, he is involved in a lot of things besides filmmaking. I would point

out, however, I think Jason Simms was referred to, I think it is actually Justin

Simms. He is the son of the famous Open Line host Randy Simms, and in fairness

to him, I would point out that I think his name is actually Justin. But, there

is on doubt, contributions do lead to great social and economic benefits to this

Province.

I did notice in reviewing the Budget documents for the Minister's

department, Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that the loans, advances and

investments

section of Culture is down about quarter of a million dollars this

year, $250,000. I do not know if that will have any impact, of course, on our

future involvement in the film industry but it is certainly an issue I will

pursue with the minister later today in Estimates.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for his advanced copy of the statement and I am

delighted to join with everybody else in the House in congratulating Joel Hynes

himself, as well as Anna Petras and Justin Simms and Sherry White on this film.

It is a tremendous honour to be chosen to be part of the Cannes Film Festival,

and they all recognize the tremendous honour that it is. We have wonderful

people in this Province in the cultural industry, skills that are equal to, no

matter where you go in this world, and this is an example that that is true.

I, too, want to bring up some issues later on this afternoon in Estimates

with the minister with regard to funding for Culture in the current Budget. I

noticed, for example, that we have gone up just a very small amount in the grant

subsidy to the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation. If we are

going to continue to be able to support efforts like Down to the Dirt , I

think we need to make sure that our funding stays on a very good level. I looked

up the 2006 report from the Arts Council which is the last report we have, of

course, and I noticed that of all the money that was requested, which was almost

$1,500,000, the Arts Council was only able to grant 42 per cent of the requests.

They were able to give $592,491-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

Just one more - not a minute, a few seconds.

Just to say that if we want to keep up this calibre of work then we have to

make sure that we keep up our level of funding and go beyond our level of

funding to make sure that our artists are fully supported.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

On Monday, we tabled a motion in the House of Assembly, a private member's

motion on home care. Later today we will debate that motion, asking government

to bring in emergency provisions for those in dire circumstances, requiring

immediate home care services.

I ask the minister, now that you have had an opportunity to review the

motion, you know what the need is that exists in the Province today, are you

prepared to look at any emergency solutions that could be implemented to help

correct this problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite has pointed out, it will be the subject of a private

member's motion that will be debated in the House, and I expect that members

on both sides of the House will engage in a healthy discussion in around the

issue this afternoon.

As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it is important, very important, if we are

looking at the future, looking at what we need as a Province, looking at what

the seniors of this Province need, and what the persons with disabilities need,

we need to look at this in a much more comprehensive way.

In fact, I was buoyed up a little bit this morning as I listened to an Open

Line caller from the Independent Living Resource Centre, who talked about the

need to do it in a comprehensive way. Acknowledge that a band-aid approach is

not appropriate. Acknowledging that a one-size fits all approach is not

appropriate. He was acknowledging just what I said yesterday and the day before,

we need to look at this in a comprehensive fashion, do it in a planned way, and

whoever completed the exercise we are currently engaged in, will then be in the

position to roll out for the people of Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will be able to roll out for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a

comprehensive long-term care and community support strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing the government, and we are

hoping that they will consider, is establishing emergency provisions for those

requiring home care but, right now, fall outside the current financial

assessment tools.

I ask the minister: Would government be willing to implement a program that

would allow those in our Province today in dire need to receive at least ten

hours of free emergency home care on a weekly basis until his review is

completed and a longer-term plan can be put in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, government has always - in the last

four-and-a-half years since we have been in government we have always,

continuously, re-evaluated, considered what our programs look like, what are

some of the necessary enhancements, do they reflect the current day needs,

current day demands. That is a continuous process, I say, Mr. Speaker. We have

given consideration to what is the best approach to look at long-term care and

community supports and we believe, as a government - and as we heard one caller

to an Open Line show this morning confirm for us that our thinking is right -

that we need to look at this in a comprehensive fashion. Band-Aid approaches

will not work, so we need to understand fully what are the future needs of

seniors, and future needs of persons with disabilities, and our strategy will

reflect just that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that we have no problem with

looking at a more comprehensive approach and a longer-term strategy. In fact, we

feel that it should have been done. I understand, from the minister's comments

earlier in the week, that review and those solutions will be no sooner than at

least the end of this calendar year.

Minister, you set the benchmark in this Budget at $31,072 as the rate of

earnings allowed for seniors in our Province in order to qualify for the Seniors'

Benefit. I ask you today: Why will you not use that income benchmark to assess

those individuals who need emergency care for home care services right now

today, not six months, eight months, or a year down the road?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the way the member opposite is framing the

question, you would not know but we have stopped providing home support in the

Province. We have not. Every single day of the week somebody within some

Regional Health Authority's boundaries are getting home support services. New

applicants are evaluated every single day.

The way the member is phrasing her question is as if we have stopped

providing emergency supports. Home support services are being provided each and

every day. New applicants are being evaluated every day. Each of our Regional

Health Authorities respond to individuals who are in crisis and emergencies on a

daily basis, and we will continue to do that as we have ever since we have been

in government, and we will continue to improve the investments we make in home

support, just like we have every single year since we have been government.

We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, responding to the emergencies that

the member talks about; but, on a go-forward basis

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the reality is, and the minister knows, despite

the fact we have an ongoing home care program in this Province, despite the fact

that every day people are out there looking for services and some may be getting

them, there is a large

section of our population today - and you have to

recognize that, Minister - that is not getting the crucial emergency home care

services they require.

In the absence of not accepting the solution we put forward, do you have

another solution that you are prepared to implement on an emergency basis until

your review is completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Let me make it abundantly clear - I do not know how much

clearer I can make it than I did the last time - each of our four authorities

are responding to emergencies each and every day.

The member opposite has put forward a proposal, a financial assessment

proposal that might, in fact, be one of the options we are exploring. It might

become close to what we will have at the end of the day. We do not know that

yet. When we have completed the exercise then we will be in a much better

position to respond to the issues.

The financial assessment applies to not just home support. It applies to an

array of services that are provided to seniors and persons with disabilities. We

want to make sure that it appropriately reflects the changing needs of the

populations that we are serving, so we are not about to do, on an ad hoc basis,

knee-jerk reactions, trying to put something in place as a band-aid approach to

something that needs much more comprehensive consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next questions are for the Minister of Education.

She stated yesterday in the House of Assembly that there would be no teacher

layoffs under the new teacher allocation model, just teachers being transferred

out of schools into other schools. I ask the minister today, however, how many

teachers are projected to retire this year and how many positions will become

vacant through attrition.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information with me to indicate

how many teachers will be retiring this year, but I can certainly get that

information and provide it to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Maybe the minister can tell me if she has any projections on

how many teachers will need to be hired in order to fill those retiree

positions, or other vacancies that are occurring.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, without the numbers of how many are retiring I

cannot say how many would have to replace those who are being retired, but if we

had 100 teachers who were required in the system, who retired, I would assume we

would need 100 teachers to replace them. I would also assume that if it was 200

teachers that retired in positions that we had in the school system we would

hire 200 to replace them.

Mr. Speaker, once we have the numbers to know how many teachers are going to

be required in the system, how many of that allocation have retired, we would be

able to indicate how many we would need to replace that number.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the minister does not know these

numbers. How can you possibly budget within your department if you do not know

how many are exiting, how many need to come in, how many new positions need to

be created? I just do not understand it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated yesterday that some schools would gain

teaching units while others may lose teaching units. I ask the minister: Are

units being transferred from certain schools into other schools to address the

need that is being created due to people retiring from those schools, and also

to meet your own standards that you have put in place to cap the number of

students in a classroom?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when we figure and come to some decisions on a

budget for teaching positions, it is based on what we perceive as the number of

teachers that would be required in the system, whether that was new hires or to

replace people who retired or whatever. So we looked at the overall number of

how many teachers we would need in the system.

Mr. Speaker, the new teacher allocation formula is one that looks at cap

sizes for certain grades in the primary, elementary, and now into the junior

high grades. It looks at specific schools to try to determine how many teachers

are needed in the system.

Mr. Speaker, we needed that for good reason; because, since we took

government, up until this time, until next year, there will be actually 11,655

less students in our schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. Based on those

numbers, it only makes sense that we need to be able to allocate teachers in a

fair and equitable manner. To have a formula that is just strictly based on

numbers would have seen about, since we took government, if we had to follow the

way teachers were coming out, it would have had, in this September coming,

actually 831 less teachers in the system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: So, Mr. Speaker, we had to respond to that need.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, that formula should also be

based on programs and curriculum that is being provided in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, our list of fifteen schools that contacted us has grown steadily

since yesterday, I say to you, Minister. We now have pages of them who have

called us. We are being contacted, Mr. Speaker, from all across the Province

where units are being removed from schools. Some of these schools already have

multi-grading in the classroom, and others will be forced to add more grades to

the classroom with a single teacher.

I ask the minister: Does she consider this to be an acceptable standard of

education for students and teachers in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have a declining student enrolment;

but, on the other side of that, we also have schools where there is an

increasing enrolment.

We have, as I indicated, 11,655 less students over a four-year period, so we

have to make sure that we allocate resources in a fair manner. Mr. Speaker,

there will be times when some schools, based on numbers, will not offer certain

grades because there are no students coming in. There will be times when the

numbers are to a point that there will be an introduction of multi-grade. That

is a reality that we are dealing with in Newfoundland and Labrador, and as we

are dealing with that reality we also have to be very cognizant of the fact that

we had to allocate resources in a way that was going to meet the needs of the

schools and students.

Mr. Speaker, if we had increasing enrolment everywhere in Newfoundland and

Labrador we would be bringing on teachers everywhere. That is not the case that

we are dealing with here in this Province, but we have to address reality.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we all accept that there is declining enrolment, but minister we

shall not accept in this Province a lower standard of education in small schools

and multi-grading of classrooms where teachers will be overworked and have

unrealistic expectations placed on them. There are eighteen units being cut at

schools in Labrador coastal communities and these eighteen positions are being

transferred out of Labrador. In one case, there is no choice but to multi-grade

a class of K-6 in the one classroom.

I ask the minister: Are you aware that teaching units in Labrador schools

right from Forteau to Nain are being gutted, and I ask you what you intend to do

with it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting point to be made here

because there is multi-grading going on in many of our schools in Newfoundland

and Labrador. Under the new way that we are allocating teachers, we actually

have a more generous formula for multi-grades than what was previously there.

So, we have actually improved that in some circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, there is a declining enrolment in many communities in

Newfoundland and Labrador and we have to make sure that we are able to meet the

needs of the students and be able to offer the programs that meet the prescribed

provincial curriculum in this Province. We were not satisfied with just pulling

out teachers based on numbers only. We have introduced many new initiatives at

this time to make sure, as I have said before, that we have an equitable

distribution of teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will mean, in some

cases, that where there is a declining enrolment we will have to face that

reality. Where we have increasing enrolment, Mr. Speaker, we will have to deal

with that issue as well. As we do it, we will make sure that the program and the

education to our students is an excellent program that we can offer, and

probably the best in Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, every school in Northern Labrador will lose teaching units. In

fact, Jens Haven Memorial School in Nain will be losing eight-point-five

teaching units under the minister's advanced education formula. This is an

area of the Province where it has been difficult to recruit teachers, where

special benefits have had to be put in place in the past in order to maintain a

good complement of teachers in the classroom.

I ask the minister, how does she expect this school and those teachers to

absorb such a huge cutback?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, there are many schools in

Newfoundland and Labrador that have a declining enrolment, and over the years -

particularly in the school referenced by the Leader of the Opposition, I think

there are sixty-two less students in that school than what was there previously

when we took government.

We have to deal with that reality, Mr. Speaker. We have to make sure that our

classrooms have sufficient resources to ensure that the curriculum is offered,

and that is exactly what this formula is doing. I cannot stress enough, that if

we continued down the road that we had for a teacher allocation formula, come

this September there would have been 813 teachers less than what there is going

to be this year. Mr. Speaker, in our Budget this year we actually put in more

money for teacher's salaries because we anticipate, when all the final numbers

are in, that there will actually be more teachers in the system next year than

there was this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the minister would think it

is perfectly acceptable to have a school, like the one in Nain, lose

eight-and-a-half teaching units and be able to absorb that come September and

deliver the same standard of programs. I certainly cannot accept that answer,

minister, and I am sure the people in Nain are not prepared to accept it either.

I ask you again: Will you look at these allocations for small schools again,

and see if there is a better way that we can enhance and keep the programs, and

not see more workload placed on teachers and less quality to the education these

children are receiving?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in this House yesterday, the final

numbers on teacher allocation are not available at this time as we are

continuing to work through the allocation for teachers for September. I am

hesitant to go getting into particular numbers on a particular school, but what

I can say is, based on the information that I received in the department,

compared to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, is that her information

and my information are not correct, and the number of teachers that I assume

will be in that school next year is more generous than what she is saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the way to resolve this is, ask the minister to

table the numbers in the House of Assembly and make them available to the

public. I have spoken to and had calls, Mr. Speaker, from people in Nain; people

who are in the education system, I say to the minister. I cannot say they were

the ones who spoke directly to the school board. I do not know that to be the

case, but what I will say to her is I feel that the information I have was very

legitimately given to me, and if you have something that says differently, I ask

that you table it in the House of Assembly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are still continuing through the process to

know what the teacher allocation will be exactly for September 2008. As I

indicated yesterday, once those numbers are final, I will be tabling that

information and it certainly will be public information.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Maybe the minister can tell me, then, why the school board is

contacting individual schools and telling them that you will now be losing one

unit, or one-and-a-half units, or eight-and-a-half units in the case of Nain?

Why is that happening if decisions have not been made?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the school board has

to give teachers notification regarding next year by a certain date, which I

understand is this week. So they are legally required to do that at this point

in time; however, if there are changes to be made because the final numbers are

not in and they may be able to relay those numbers or that indication back to

the teachers, they will have to do it. It is my understanding, at this time,

that there is a date that they are legally required, unless they have that

confirmed, that they need to notify the teachers, and I assume that is probably

what they have been doing.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, another concern that has been raised with us - and

in the event that numbers are fluctuating, as the minister says, maybe she might

be able to do something about this as well - in Central Newfoundland, the school

board in that particular area had a very successful program involving placing

literacy and numeracy support teachers to assist primary students, and I raised

this yesterday in the House. They have informed us, in that region, that they

may lose some of this allocation model and not be able to offer the same support

services in the classroom. In fact, there is one school that have confirmed with

us that is the case.

I ask the minister: Is there a way that this can change, more resources being

provided to that program, so they do not have to be shifted out of one school

that needs it just to be put into another school that needs it as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that whole issue goes beyond just teacher

allocation.

One thing that is extremely important in the education system in Newfoundland

and Labrador is that we continuously evaluate how we are doing. We do CRTs in

Grade 3, Grade 6 and Grade 9, and public exams every year. We also embarked on

an Excellence in Mathematics Strategy and we introduced twenty-five new

mathematics specialists into the schools last year to assist with that strategy,

and that goes across all grades in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we look at the needs and we work with the school boards based on the

needs, we make sure that we put the emphasis on the academics, on the teacher

allocation, and on the needs of the school and the school board based on student

achievement.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just based completely - teacher allocation - on what

types of specialists the board needs. It is certainly a broader piece of work

that is done. The boards are encouraged to look at the needs, to bring forward

their needs based on student achievement, to help us, as the Department of

Education, to be able to match the needs with the teacher allocation in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, is the minister saying

that any new strategies and programs, like the one you referred to in

mathematics, are extra units that are placed with the board for those regions

and it does not come out of the normal allocation of teachers that goes in to

schools? Is that what you are saying?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, last year this government announced, as part of

the Excellence in Mathematics Strategy, that we would hire twenty-five teachers

to provide supports in the schools in the area of mathematics. That is over and

above the allocation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister announced yesterday - the Minister of

Municipal Affairs - that it was National Emergency Preparedness Week, and the

minister encouraged us all to have plans in place in case of emergencies.

As we have witnessed over the past couple of months, it is unfortunate that

this advice was not incurred in your own department when it comes to fire

inspections, especially in hospitals within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, he did commit to undertake a review of the inspection protocols,

so I ask the minister today: Who is conducting this review, and when did it

start?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did commit to the review. The review is done by my officials, and they will

bring in people who are - any stakeholders that they deem necessary to come to

some type of conclusion, some type of recommendation, so we can look at it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the officials - does he mean the fire commissioner's

office or within the Department of Municipal Affairs? Also, can he give me the

timeline in which that review will be completed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the Fire and Emergency Services Agency, which

started about eighteen months ago, which is basically in its infancy stage

because of the initiatives taken by this government, the officials in that

department, which include the fire commissioner's office, they will be

included on it.

The timeframe, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you an exact timeframe but we are

trying to do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. I am not going to

rush this, because there are issues here that we are dealing with, life safety

issues, and I want to make sure that when the plan comes in it is the right one

for us to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last number of weeks, I have tried to take some comfort in the

Minister of Education's answers around how inspections are being done for fire

and safety in schools.

Mr. Speaker, she talked about a checklist that was completed, similar to

this. Mr. Speaker, we know that a recent directive was sent out from the school

boards to all the schools, asking them to submit these checklist forms. We also

know from fire chiefs in this Province that many of the schools were not doing

these and submitting them, at least to their offices, on a regular basis.

She was going to undertake a process of looking into this and bringing the

information to the House of Assembly. We have yet to see it, and I would like to

know how much longer it will be.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to get that information. We are

certainly working on that within the Department of Education. As soon as it is

available, I will table it here in the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it was on March 11 two months ago when the

minister agreed to provide that information to us. I am wondering, why is there

such a delay? I know there are schools scrambling today to get this done, based

on a memo.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask the minister: How much longer will it be? You have had

two months. We would like to get the information.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, as soon as the information becomes

available and I cannot put a date to it now, but as soon as it becomes

available - I will certainly table it here in the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on April 3 the Minister of Health and Community Services

announced a campaign to promote the child care subsidy program. In November,

last year, families were hit with a big fee increase. Families on low income

were hit the worst, and many middle income earners are also hurting from the

additional cost of $200 or more per month for each child. In response,

government only raised the income threshold of eligibility.

I ask the minister: When will this government raise the subsidy rates to help

the families that continue to suffer from high fees?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our government has continued to expand the program areas. We have increased

the capacity we have in the system. We have increased the number of subsidies.

The most recent investment was announced, as you just noted, back in the fall of

last year when we announced some new investments that will make it more

accessible, increase the threshold and increase capacity. We are continuing to

honour our commitment to ensure that - in this term our commitment has been to

increase the number of spaces by 30 per cent, increase the number of subsidies

by 30 per cent, which is consistent with the track record we had the first four

years we were in government.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, looking at the past, looking at our commitment to the

future and what we are doing today, clearly reflects our government's

commitment to the children in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister ignored the point of my question, which is there are many people

on subsidies for whom the subsidy is not enough. He did not answer that

question, what is he going to do for them?

Mr. Speaker, one of the stated goals of the Budget was to improve economic

opportunity for people so that they can go to work and ensure that their

children are cared for.

I ask the minister again: Why this government will not take child care

seriously enough and put in place a real strategy to create affordable child

care spaces for everyone, affordable child care spaces?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the notion that this

government does not take it seriously. I just laid out very clearly, in the four

years, our first four years of government we increased capacity by a little over

30 per cent. We increased the number of subsidies by a little over 30 per cent.

We have made a commitment that we will do that again in the next four years. In

addition to that, we will develop a long-term strategy to ensure that the future

needs of children in this Province are met.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not a reflection of a government that do not

take it seriously. That is not a reflection of a minister who does not take it

seriously and that is not a reflection of a government who has its eye on the

future, I say, Mr. Speaker. It was very much a reflection of a government who

has a genuine concern for the future of children in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish that my colleagues on the other side of the House, if they are going

to quote me would say all the words that I said. I said the government is not

taking seriously enough. I did not say you are not taking it seriously. So if

you are going to take it seriously enough, I think that you missed a real

opportunity in this year's Budget. Government could have really helped parents

by creating new spaces, especially new non-profit programs in rural and urban

areas.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please tell me how many new spaces that the

Budget of 2008-2009 has created?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the member, and she will find this out when she goes through the

Estimates Committee some time next week with our department. There is a piece in

that Budget that says the budget for Regional Health Authorities and within that

budget there is an allocation for a variety of programs and services. We have

made a commitment that will continue to increase the number of spaces. I think

in the last, a little less than twelve months, we have increased by some 100 in

some more rural and remote areas where capacity was an issue. Our Regional

Health Authorities have within their budget allocations sufficient funding to be

able to accommodate the growth that we are projecting for this year. So, it is

not a single line item that the minister read out in the Budget, but he read out

a number. He talked about the strengthening of the Regional Health Authorities

by giving them additional money to carry out the programs they now have a

mandate for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The increased capacity that we will deal with this year, the money is within

the Regional Health Authorities budget to do so. So, it is false to say there is

no money for capacity this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have a few petitions. I had some leftover and I thought that I was not

going to have to stand here again today, but it is on the doctor shortages in

the Conception Bay North area, and I am sure throughout this Province. There is

a tremendous shortage of doctors, and I guess I have been prompted over the last

few days as you read the papers, listen to the news, the people who have called

in complaining about the shortage of doctors and the problems that they are

having.

I guess most recently, even the Joint Councils of Conception Bay North, which

takes in quite a few communities, they are hearing from their residents and they

have brought it forward in the form of a motion themselves, hoping that

government will see to it and try their best. I know we hear talk of recruitment

and retention and we hope that over the next short period of time that something

will happen, Mr. Speaker. It is a serious situation, more so where people do not

even have a doctor. They have to travel either to St. John's to try and get a

doctor, but the key thing and the main thing they have problems with is when

they have some specialized work done. They do not have a general practitioner

where their reports can be sent back to.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just call upon government to see to it and try to do their

best to keep up the battle for the retention and the recruitment of doctors in

rural Newfoundland. We know the seniors even brought it forward as part of their

platform, that they find it very difficult. It also places a tremendous burden

on the emergency units. When people do not have a general practitioner to go to,

they have to go to the emergency units.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in the Province

regarding the new teacher allocation formula and units that are being cut in

different schools around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, they feel that this new approach does not reflect the true need

in small, rural schools primarily, and will negatively impact the programming

and curriculum being delivered in the classroom. It says:

WHEREAS the government must recognize the adverse impact this decision will

have upon the quality of education provided to students and implement a needs

based criteria for small schools.

The petitioners ask the Minister of Education and government to reinstate

teaching units in small rural schools and review guidelines to find a solution

that recognizes the unique needs of students in these areas.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is easy to give answers that are misleading. When you

get up and talk about things and say that no teachers are being cut from the

system, it does not mean that there are classrooms in the school that will not

be void of teachers, because there will be.

We know already, Mr. Speaker, from about twenty-five to thirty different

schools around the Province that we have talked to directly, that each and every

one of them will lose units in the classroom. Those units may be transferred

into another school to cover someone who is retiring or transferred into a

school where the classroom size or the enrolment has an increase, but we feel

that it is being done, and it is being done with tremendous impact upon those

students that are losing the unit. We know that, Mr. Speaker, because we have

talked to teachers, we have talked to parents and we have talked to students

directly. We know what this will mean and the impact will mean in many of these

particular schools - a lot of them in districts that these members represent.

I have heard from schools in Labrador, in Labrador North, we have heard from

them in Twillingate, we have heard from them in Grand Falls, we have heard from

them in Stephenville-Bay St. George, we have heard from schools on the Burin

Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue that is isolated to my own district

or to any other district. It is affecting members who are representing rural

schools right across this Province.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that there would be eighteen

actually, it is 18.5 teaching units that will be taken out of small schools

along the Coast of Labrador and transferred to other Island based schools;

larger schools when it comes to enrolment, schools that have more resources in

many cases. I think this will be a tremendous negative move for schools in these

areas, simply because we know already there had to be special benefit programs

put in place for northern schools in order to recruit teachers. We know that

accommodations had to be made for housing in these communities in order to

recruit teachers, and now we are going to say to them we are going to give you

more of a workload. We are going to download more classroom grades on you, more

curriculums on you, and we are expecting you to deliver more with less. Well, I

don't think that is going to help our case when it comes to trying to recruit

in many of these areas. So, there are several issues here.

I have a number of petitions, and over the next couple of weeks I will be

presenting them in the House of Assembly, and hopefully the minister will hear

the voices of these parents and these teachers who are concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order before I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was only a day or so ago in this

House that you made a ruling that it is unparliamentary and against the rules

for a member to refer to a statement made by another member in this House as

misleading.

I think Hansard will clearly show that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

made the statement that the Minister of Education gave misleading answers, I

believe was her quote, to the House - when she was just speaking on the

petition. That is not appropriate, according to the rules.

If I am correct, and Hansard shows that I am correct, then at the appropriate

time I would ask Your Honour to deal with it.

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

I ask members to be mindful of the time.

The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making the

statement, but if I did I certainly withdraw it and it was not intended to be

meant in that way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it being 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Private

Members' Day, I believe our Standing Orders now dictate that we move to Motion

3 on the Order Paper, in the name of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and present the private member's motion as

it relates to home care services in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are bringing forward this motion at this particular time

because we have been contacted by a number of people out there in the Province

who require home care services but, at the current time, are not able to access

that service. One of the reasons for that is because of the financial assessment

tools that are currently being used to calculate their eligibility.

These assessment tools have been in place for the past ten years. Probably

going back ten years ago they may have been adequate, when you look at what the

cost of living was at that particular time in comparison to what the cost of

living is today.

Mr. Speaker, today, as you know, we have seen the price of gasoline and home

heating fuel increase tremendously. In fact, over that period of time we have

seen home heating fuel go somewhere from about sixty-nine cents a litre up to

what it is today - $1.10 or $1.15. We have seen the price of gasoline increase

from around eighty cents a litre up to $1.35 and over $1.40 in many places in

the Province.

Also over that course of time the cost of electricity has increased; we have

had several rate increases both through Newfoundland Light and Power and through

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. In addition to that, we have had a higher price

of goods being provided to people, so the entire standard in terms of the cost

of living has increased but the tool in which people are assessed for home care

has not changed.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the case of one particular couple in this

Province, and that is Patrick Connors and his wife. We have heard their case,

Mr. Speaker, and I have referred to them on several occasions because I think

they are the face of what the need is for home care service in this Province

today. I think they are the example of what many seniors out there in

Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with in terms of challenging times,

dealing with sickness and illness in their home, but yet not being able to

afford the services that they require.

Mr. Connors and his wife were in situation

whereas, when they were assessed

for home care and they were looked at, their income, which was approximately

$25,000 a year, once they were assessed for home care they were told that you

would have to contribute about $1,100 a month towards your home care services,

which meant that they would be left with half their annual income to live on;

and, over the course of a twelve month period, instead of being able to live on

the full $25,000 in earnings they had, they were being told you have to live on

$12,000 in earnings if you are to be able to qualify for home care.

Mr. Speaker, we felt that this was a serious enough issue that it should be

raised in the House of Assembly and it should be raised and introduced to the

attention of government, and we did that prior to the Budget. We had hoped that

in the Budget some allowances would be made to deal with this problem, and I

think that we were actually shocked that there were not; because, even though we

knew that government may not come out with a solution immediately to fix the

program on a long-term basis, we thought, at least with the recognition and the

understanding that this need was there, that they would at the very minimum

commit at that time to doing a full review of the financial assessment tools and

put in place an emergency program that they could deliver home care to those

families that needed it until there was a more permanent-based program in place.

Unfortunately, that did not happen and that is why we have had to bring forward

this motion today to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we are not bringing forward this motion just to say to

government that we want you to do something. This is not about politics. It is

about finding real solutions on an interim basis for those people in our

Province who need it; and, Mr. Speaker, there are many out there today who are

falling through the cracks. Not only are seniors, but people who are living with

disabilities in their lives and require home care services as well, so there is

a gap, and I think the first thing government needs to do is recognize that gap

exists.

In the meantime, what we are proposing, and we think it is a sensible

solution to be looked at, what we are proposing is that, based on the government's

own benchmarks that they established in the Budget and, Mr. Speaker, they

did establish a benchmark that said any person, any senior, individual or

married couple, that would earn up to $31,072 or $31,092 on an annual basis

would now qualify for the Seniors' Benefit.

What we are saying is, use your same income benchmarks your same income

benchmarks - to assess people for emergency home care services that would

contribute to a minimum of ten hours a week of home care to those families who

need it, free of charge, until there is another program in place.

We thought that was a reasonable solution. There were other solutions that we

could have considered. In fact, the Leader of the NDP yesterday offered up the

solution of the low-income drug program, and we did look at that as well; but,

in fact, even looking at those thresholds that were established, there would

still be a tremendous number of people who would fall through the cracks, and

would still not be able to access the home care that they required.

In fact, Patrick Connors and his wife would have been one of those couples

that would have fallen through the cracks on the low-income support program,

because their income was at $25,000 a year which, in fact, they would have

been required to pay up to 70 per cent, I think, of their home care services,

which is still a tremendous amount of money for them to have to pay for that

particular service. So at the end of the month they would not be paying $1,100,

they would probably be paying $900, but still it was not an affordable program

for those people. It may meet the needs of some individuals, but it still will

not meet the needs of many who need the program.

There may be other solutions that government could look at and I am sure

there are but we wanted to offer up at least an example of what could be

done, and it could be rolled out fairly quickly to respond to an emergency need.

It would be using government's own benchmarks around income levels that they

have established for seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that you can always turn a

deaf ear to any issue in the Province that you want to. As leaders and

governments that govern and make decisions it is easy to turn a blind eye, but,

Mr. Speaker, it is harder when a situation continues to stare you in the face.

That is what I have been experiencing, case after case after case of seniors in

this Province and people with disabilities who are falling through the cracks in

homecare programs. They are not just in my district, Mr. Speaker, they are in

districts of members all over the Province.

I am sure there are many members in this House of Assembly today who know of

cases in their own districts where there are people looking for homecare

services but cannot get it because they would have to give up half their income

in order to avail of the service. If they are not in your districts, I challenge

you, because I think I have heard from people from almost every single region of

the Province to date. I would have to think long and hard if there is at least a

district I have not heard from someone in regarding this homecare program. The

need is not limited to my district or limited to Mr. Connors and his family, but

it is a problem that is extended to a number of families in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we agree that there needs to be a longer term overhaul of this

program. I will be the first to admit that after ten years the formula should

always be changed, not just for this program but for all programs that institute

social benefits to people in the Province, simply because the cost of living

continues to change, the price we pay for things continues to go up, and

therefore so should the income levels upon which we depend.

I don't think it is fair at all by today's standards, and I think the

minister recognizes that, that it isn't fair by today's standards to expect

any family to be able to live on $550 a month of their total earnings just so

they can qualify for a homecare program. I think that needs to be recognized.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is, the homecare that I speak of is not a

homecare service whereby someone comes into your house and makes your bed and

does your laundry and makes dinner for you. It is a service that requires

tremendous personal efforts on behalf of homecare workers. It means caring for,

in lots of cases, the very basic needs of individuals. Without that kind of

support they are really totally dependent upon family members and other members,

if they can find them, to help out.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are fortunate enough and lucky enough to have a

family member who can provide that service, there is still no remuneration for

that family member. They do not get paid, and I think that is a problem as well.

I think that everybody in society is prepared to give a level of care, but I

hear from people all the time who have to give up their jobs, their full-time

job themselves in order to provide home care to a loved one, whether it be a

spouse, whether it be another family member, a parent or grandparent, a sister

or a brother, but it is happening all the time. Because they cannot afford the

home care services while they work, often in cases they end up giving up work,

then they have no income, then they are totally dependent upon the system to

provide for their basic income needs, plus all their other supplementary

benefits. I think we are really pushing people into a corner that is dragging

them down and not lifting them up, that is pushing them into places where they

are not able to give back to society the way that they want to. As you know,

just because you have issues that require you to oftentimes need home care it

does not mean that you do not have tremendous skills and other abilities and

knowledge to offer in society. If you are totally consumed about how your

personal most intimate needs are going to be met everyday in your own home, it

really does restrict you in the other abilities that you are able to perform in.

Mr. Speaker, I have known that to be the case with many people who live with

disabilities in particular, who require home care services. They should not have

to be placed on a list. They should not have to jump through hoops to qualify

for basic, essential services in this Province. I think if you were to sit down

and take a good hard look, and look into the eyes of people like Pat Connors and

his wife, you will see the very example of what existing is for many, many

people in this Province. I think that it has come time, a time when we have more

financial ability than we have ever had in our lives, a time when we are able to

re-juggle monies and reallocate monies to meet essential needs in this society.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be critical of programs and initiatives that

government is doing because I am sure every single thing that government does or

announces benefits someone, but it is very difficult to put your head around $15

million going into a caribou study in the Province when you have seniors sitting

at home who do not have home care services. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but for me,

that is a very difficult one to put my head around. In fact, if I were to stand

in any public community centre in my district, and I am sure every member here,

and ask people if they thought that spending $15 million into this program was a

far better investment for this Province than it was putting it into an enhanced

home care program for people out there who need this service, I think you know

what the answer would have been.

Even people that this caribou study is being conducted for are complaining. I

have received a number of e-mails from people out there who are in the

agriculture business, who are in the outfitting business, who tell me that this

is to do with a coyote problem in the Province, and this is where we should be

redirecting our energies and that some of this money is going into areas that

they do not see as a necessity. I am not an expert on this stuff. I do not know,

Mr. Speaker, that to be the case or not. What I do know is that it is very hard

to swallow on any given day, when you have issues regarding people who

desperately need home care services to function in our society, to have a

quality of life, but yet, you have people who are more prepared to put money

into caribou studies that cost up to $15 million. I am sorry, but it is hard for

me to sell. Maybe you can sell it. Maybe you can convince those in your

districts who need this service that that was a better investment. Somehow I

doubt it, but I challenge you to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to conclude my remarks, I hope at the

end of the discussion. I hope that members in the House will see this. We want

government to seriously look at interim measures that can be allocated and we

certainly hope today that members here will stand and vote, and that this will

be put in place to help alleviate some of those problems.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice for me to get up today. Actually, it could not be more fitting of

a time, I guess, for me to speak on this motion today. Let me just say, Mr.

Speaker, before I get into it too much, this is a formula that has been around,

I think the speaker before me said ten years, and I think it may have been

tweaked with a couple of times. I think it was tweaked with a little bit since

then but generally it has been around for a long, long time. There is no doubt,

and there is nobody in government circles, certainly, questioning the need to

review this whole policy and this whole evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we do not do it in a piecemeal

fashion. I think it is very, very important that we do it right, that we take

the time, we do the appropriate analysis. You know somebody was questioning it

as if it was a game to us in government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you

that it is certainly not a game for me and it is certainly not a game for our

government. When I hear people say, well, you know government may turn a blind

eye to it or government should look in the eyes of the people who need this

stuff, Mr. Speaker, I know exactly what they talk about. I know exactly what

they speak of. To be totally honest with you, I have a family member now who is

currently residing in hospital but hopefully will be out in the coming days and

very well may need homecare; is in a condition where they do not have mobility.

Of course, we are going to try to do it ourselves. Like most families you try to

commit to it, but like most families today both people in the house are working,

you have small children, so you rely on things like homecare when families

cannot fill the gap.

I guess, in my case, even though we all live under the one roof, if you will,

the family member has her own set up, her own living space, her own I will call

it an in-law apartment. She would probably tell you that I am the one that lives

in the apartment, no doubt, but the reality of it is that is what I refer to it

as. To be totally honest with you, I do not know her income. She is a very

capable individual, pays her own bills, drives her own car when she is capable

of it and does her own banking all by phone. I will call her a young senior for

lack of getting a tanning the next time I run into her, but I would consider her

a young senior.

Mr. Speaker, there is going to come a time now when a financial assessment

will probably have to be done and, like I said, I really personally do not know

her exact income. I never did, but my guess is, my honest guess, that she would

probably be over the current limit. By taking out all of the allowances, she

would probably have to make a personal commitment to have homecare in her home.

Mr. Speaker, obviously I live with the individual, she is a family member, and

certainly I would want to see it covered and as much done for her as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the reality of it is that we have to do it right.

I see the merits. I see where we are to. I see the importance of doing it

right and it is essential that we do it right. It is not a time to be

piecemealing stuff. If we go back through the history of governments I guess we

would quickly see that when piecemeal approaches have been taken on to items it

has never worked out in the end. That is why I think it is very, very important

that we get this right and we get it right now.

When I hear someone talk about looking someone in the eyes who needs homecare

and who will probably be just over the threshold, certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will

probably be doing that as early as this afternoon when I get out of this House.

This is a very personal issue for me and I certainly understand. I do not say

this flippantly in any kind of a way, I honestly believe we have to get it

right. It makes no sense doing this of a piecemeal fashion.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we listen to debates in this House and you would think

that we have not done anything, that we have forgotten about people who need

supports in this Province or we have forgotten about the elderly in particular.

I realize that home support includes more than seniors, but certainly people

with disabilities need it as well. It probably includes, I would think, more

seniors than anybody else in the Province.

Government, in the reality, has invested heavily in the last number of years

in home support. As a matter of fact, in April of 2004 the budget for home

support in this Province was $80.7 million. In April of 2007, that increased to

$97.4 million, a total of a $16.7 million increase in those three years. Today,

in this fiscal year, expenditures are expected to exceed $100 million in the

home care of this Province. Home support for seniors alone has increased from

$19.9 million to $22.6 million in that same period of time.

Mr. Speaker, we have done significant things in home care. Have we got it all

right? Well, certainly we will find out. We are in the process, like I said, of

doing a long-term care study to make sure that we get this financial piece - the

whole long-term care issue is being looked at, and of course, the financial

assessment piece is certainly the cornerstone of that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2008 we committed a $6 million increase to

support the hourly rate for home support services. That marks the fifth increase

in the last three years. Basically, what has happened is that the rates for

workers have gone from $7.29 an hour to today, $9.29 an hour. Mr. Speaker, we

have put considerable money into this whole issue.

Mr. Speaker, the whole long-term care strategy, like I said earlier,

including the financial development of new approaches to ensuring that the

system addresses the health and social needs of our clients, will be to

encourage choice, promote independence and mobility and deliver quality service.

The whole long-term care strategy, that is its goals, that is its pointed goals.

This government has committed $15 million dedicated to furthering that work.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that we are working on, something we certainly

haven't got on the back burner. As a matter of fact, as early as this morning

I was speaking to a staff member who was working towards this issue. The whole

long-term care strategy is alive and well in the Department of Health and

Community Services. That is something I can certainly assure the people of this

Province.

I just spoke about the money that we have committed, and I referenced the

fact that there are very many although not only seniors need homecare, a

great many of the people need homecare. As most of the people in this Province

are aware by now, we certainly have an aging population. The population in this

Province, I think it is in the next ten years the median age of the population

will be over fifty-five. If I am not mistaken that is the correct number. I know

we certainly have an aging population, I think the fastest aging population in

the country as a matter of fact.

When I hear that we are not looking into the future and we are not planning

certainly, we have to be prepared and be ready for an elderly population as

time goes on. One of the things announced recently by the Minister of Health was

a commitment of $200,000 to research projects, on issues relating to aging and

seniors. Mr. Speaker, this is something that we know as a government and we see

that it is essential to the future of our Province that we be prepared for our

aging population, whether it be persons with disabilities, the housing

requirements, supportive care, palliative and dementia care models, promoting

the proper use of medications, mental health and addictions. Mr. Speaker, all

these items fall under this commitment of $200,000 that we have given for

research in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to be repetitive but I think it is important to the

people of this Province that they realize that what has happened in the last

four or five days as I said, this is not a new policy. This is not something

that government brought in last week or last month or last year. As the Leader

of the Official Opposition said, this is a ten-year old formula. It is

something, certainly, that we are working on as we speak.

In the last few days the Minister of Health has entertained a number of

questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and, Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to them. I want to

be pointed on these responses, because I want the general public out there to

know exactly what was said. The questions were posed, and I am not going to read

the questions, but basically it was: What are you doing? What are you going to

do? How are you going to react? We are in a situation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote, for the general public, for the people

listening and for members here in the House, exactly what the minister said in

the last couple of days. This is from May 5, 2008, and I quote and this was

to a question from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, "I had indicated

that our government is doing a complete evaluation of our long-term care and

community support system. There are many aspects to that, Mr. Speaker, home

support services, long-term care homes, personal care homes, alternate family

living arrangements and an array of issues we are looking at. One of the things

that is a piece of that is the whole financial assessment process. That

mechanism determines how much a client contribution should be for an array of

services, including" - home support services.

Mr. Speaker, it also goes on to say, "it is very difficult for us, as

a government, or anybody who is being responsible, to cherry-pick one particular

aspect of a major strategy and decide that you are going to respond to an issue

today, and try to plug a hole."

Mr. Speaker, that says it all. It is going to be done in a comprehensive

fashion and we are in the middle of that, to paraphrase. It is an extensive

piece of work, and I quote, "an extensive piece of work". This is not

something you can pick up Monday morning and solve Monday afternoon. It does not

work like that; it is simply too large.

Being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I have gained

knowledge of the different facets of the whole long-term care strategy, Mr.

Speaker.

It was mentioned here earlier in Question Period, we heard the Minister of

Health quoting somebody from this morning - I believe they are involved in the

Independent Living Resource Centre. I have that quote here in front of me.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman said - and I do not need to go on and

name him. I am sure he is well aware of the whole issue; he works with the

Independent Living Resource Centre. That is a group of people who provide

invaluable service, I might add, to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He says: There are so many challenges and variants in home care that one

across-the-board solution will not fix the problem.

Mr. Speaker, these are people who work on a day-to-day basis they realize

that a comprehensive consideration is needed when we talk about the variations

in home care.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. That was what the minister responded to on May 5.

I also have quotes here from the May 6, in which he reiterated again the very

same answer. Just to paraphrase: One of the things that we are committed to, Mr.

Speaker, is making some significant change and reform to our long-term care and

community support sector. One of the pieces of that, as I said yesterday, as I

said the week before, one of the pieces of that is a financial assessment tool

that is currently being used. We want to do it right, Mr. Speaker. A piecemeal

fashion is not going to work. We want to do what is right for today's

generation, and we want to do what is right for future generations: programs and

services that are responsive to the changing needs of seniors and also that are

sustainable in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, very clear again, this is something we have not forgotten about.

This is not something that is on the back burner. This is something we are

dealing with today. As we speak today, in the Department of Health and Community

Services, I can assure you, there is somebody working on the long-term care

strategy for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to say, okay, let's fix it. This issue did not

come up yesterday. This is an issue now like I said, the formula is ten

years old. Obviously, government realizes it is not adequate, it needs

improvements, and certainly that is something we are working toward.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is running out here quickly but I certainly

wanted to respond to, and try to explain - we talk about how comprehensive this

study is. I just wanted to touch as quickly as I could on the number of

different types of services where people require financial assessments, a needs

assessment and a financial assessment done for this service. It does not happen

only in the case of home care. There are many facets to this whole long-term

care strategy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, today in this Province there

are 10,000 individuals taking advantage of the long-term care strategy. I can

assure you that many of these people many of them have very unique

circumstances. There is no way that all 10,000 of them are the same, I can

assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, the whole system in this Province is comprised of a

variety of options to provide individuals with supports and services they

require to live independently.

I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but if I could have leave just for a

couple of moments?

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): By leave?

MR. FRENCH: Just a small amount.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. FRENCH: I will be very quick.

Of course, there are therapeutic and professional services offered that do

not need an assessment. There is the financial assessment service. There are

home support services. There is the Special Assistance Program. There is the

Adult Day Support Program.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there are these different residential services that all

require financial assessment, and they are comprised of a number of sectors.

There are the personal care homes and community care homes that require a

financial assessment. There are nursing homes and residential dementia care

facilities, Mr. Speaker, again, require financial assessments. There is

alternate family care and co-operative apartments. Mr. Speaker, independent

living - or alternate family care, sorry - is a situation whereby people live

with a family. It could be up to two people. They live with a family, and the

family cares for them as if it is their own children or their own relatives or

their own relations, and they go on to live a normal life with the supports of

the people who own the home.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. There are a number of different avenues of care.

Then there is the co-operative apartment program. Again, I just mention the

independent living arrangements. There are co-operative apartments. So, Mr.

Speaker, there are many, many levels of care and different needs within the

community. To take a piece out of that and piecemeal it for one certain

particular area is not doing justice to the whole long-term care strategy. That

is why today, Mr. Speaker, I will be standing and voting against this.

Like I said, I can actually look into the eyes of family members who live

under the same roof as me and will probably have to go down this road of a

financial assessment in the very near future. Hopefully not, but some days it

looks that way. Mr. Speaker, I will have to go down that road, and I deal with

people in my district all the time who go down that road.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that we get it right, and our government

is doing its best to get it right, but it is going to take a bit of time to do

it. As I have said, as the minister has said many, many times, we are working on

a long-term care strategy and hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will have it here

sooner rather than later.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just going to take a few minutes. Hopefully I will not use up all my

time, so other people can get an opportunity to speak on this motion, the

private member's motion put forward by the Member for CartwrightL'Anse au

Clair on home care.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Member for Conception Bay South,

and I agree with him that it has to take time to do it properly, but this is not

an issue that came up this week. This is an issue, I can assure you, that some

hon. members in this House now on the government side, I remember them bringing

it forward when the former Administration was in power. Here we are, five years,

going on five years now, into a new Administration and we are still talking

about getting it right.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, but still the issue that we read about

recently in the paper of the Connors family, those people are still going

through difficult times. The hon. Member for Conception Bay South said that many

of them are older people who require home care. From the stats that I saw, I

think it is somewhere around 64 per cent who require that care. It is not only

the sake of the home care, of staying in the home. That is what people want to

do. It also disrupts the family, it is a known fact, if they have to move out

and go into other facilities and so on.

The main reason I wanted to stand today is to give, I guess, a personal story

that happened in my district over the last couple or three years. I heard one of

the hon. members opposite during Question Period when home care came up, he said

all you are doing is fearmongering. Well, I can assure you the story that I have

to tell is far from fearmongering. This gentleman, unfortunately, came to the

point where he had to be admitted to hospital. While he was there they were

unable, even if they wanted to, to get him into another care facility. The time

came when the call went to the family - his wife, they just lived alone. They

received a phone call saying that you have to come for him; he has to be

discharged from the hospital. So, she took him home, and had to spend some money

by other means which they could not afford to do, to join a piece onto the house

so that he could live comfortable at home. It was very difficult, but she did

fortunately, I think it was somewhere around four hours per day of home care

that she received. Here she was, he wanted to stay at home and she was doing

everything for him. With just a meagre four hours per day they had a very

difficult time, let me assure you.

Mr. Speaker, when he became of age to receive his old age security, I guess

the bottom totally fell out of it, because they were in a financial position -

even though they were getting a few more dollars, they still could not manage.

The system - believe it or not, he had a hospital bed. He had a lift and various

other pieces of equipment that he had to have to survive at home, and the system

- she received a phone call saying, now that you do not qualify for any

assistance, we are even going to come and take away some of the pieces of

equipment that we loaned you when you were receiving assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I think that goes too far with it. There was a tremendous amount

of effort put in, not only by myself but others to help stop that situation.

Today, unfortunately, because she could not get the additional home care, that

gentleman now is in one of the long-term care facilities in the Conception Bay

North area, and believe it or not, for a cost of $4,200 per month.

When we look at the long-term care that we are talking about here today and

the many people who need it - and that is only one particular story. I am sure

there are hundreds of others. I believe that we have to look at this situation

very seriously and as soon as possible. Here is this gentleman now, and she does

not have a vehicle to get back and forth. So it totally disrupts the family.

When people want to stay in their homes, I believe a means has to be provided

where additional supports can be given them.

My hon. colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair mentioned the benchmark

that government used recently for Seniors' Benefits, which goes on a scale, I

think it is from $15,000 up to approximately $31,000. I believe that is

something that should be brought in.

At this time, I would like to move an amendment to the Home Care Motion,

seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. It reads as follows:

Be it further resolved that this House urges government to immediately

implement as an emergency measure a ten-hour a week free allocation of home care

time where a need for such care has been identified by health care

professionals, and where they fall below the income benchmark of the $31,930

established by government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a few moments to review the amendment

put forward by the Member for Port de Grave.

I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have not had an opportunity either to see the amendment. Perhaps I would

like to have some opportunity to make a comment whether, in my view, it is even

in order. I am sure the Chair will consult with the Table Officers and so on,

but I would like a moment or so at least to give it some thought myself so I

could perhaps make an argument that might be useful to Your Honour in

considering whether, in fact, the - it unusual that somebody gets up and amends

their own motion. It does not happen every day and it is not something I

anticipated, but I would certainly like to have an opportunity to look at it.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Government House Leader, the amendment

was just decided upon very recently. We have checked with the Table Officers and

we understand that it is in order as an amendment. It may be unusual that you

would amend your own motion. I would point out for the record, that this is

Private Members' Day. It is a private member's motion put forward, the

principal motion, by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. This is being

amended now by the Member for Port de Grave. I understand, it is a friendly

amendment, they call it, and it is certainly in order to do that.

Anyway, I have no problem with the Government House Leader taking whatever

time he feels necessary to review the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would still like to take a few moments to review

the amendment as put forward by the Member for Port de Grave so that the Chair

can determine whether the amendment is in order.

Having said that, I ask the Government House Leader, if you would like to

take a few moments prior to our short recess to review this, to read the

amendment and make your comments.

MR. RIDEOUT: I want to see it first, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible). So, you

might want to take a recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we will take a few moments and allow the Government

House Leader to review the amendment. Then, at that point, we will recess

allowing the Government House Leader to make some remarks. We will recess to

review the amendment and take into consideration the comments made on that.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for giving me an opportunity, a brief opportunity, to have a look

at the amendment as proposed by the Member for Port de Grave, the Deputy House

Leader or Whip, I am not sure what his title is, but certainly one of the

members of the party whose leader proposed this amendment originally. Not that

it makes any difference, but I point it out as a fact, Mr. Speaker, and I point

it out for this reason: we, from time to time in this House, propose amendments

one against the other. If the Opposition proposes a resolution, it has not been

uncommon for this side of the House to propose an amendment that might make the

resolution more friendly and more acceptable to a larger group in the House. I

have done it in my time here. The Opposition has done it to private members'

resolutions from this side. We do it quite frequently.

I considered today, as Government House Leader, to advise my colleagues to

look at a friendly amendment to this particular resolution, and I chose not to

do it, which is my right. It was my right to do it, but my right also to choose

not to do it, out of respect for the Opposition. The Opposition has an amendment

before the House that they have a right to have debated without us attempting,

every time they put a resolution down, to gut it. So, out of respect for

parliamentary tradition and parliamentary practice, I choose to, whatever the

political fallout is, to take that political fallout and deal with it; fair

game.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is something different. Just look at the

resolution as it is before the House right now without the amendment. It says:

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges Government to immediately

implement emergency measures" That is what this resolution calls for;

for the government to implement emergency measures to do certain things to

lessen the burden on those requiring services and so on in the health care

sector. That is, what we say in parliamentary terms, I suppose, the pith and

substance of this resolution. That is what the Opposition brought in for us to

debate and gave notice of on Monday.

Now if we tried to amend that today that would be one thing, but the party

that proposed it has proposed an amendment to it, to do what, Mr. Speaker? Let

me read just a piece of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment says

this, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House urges government to immediately

implement as an emergency measure a ten hour a week free allocation of homecare",

and then it goes on to say where such need exists and where people fall below a

certain threshold. That is a total, I would submit to the Chair, a total

departure from the pith and substance of the original resolution.

The original resolution called on the House to ask the government to

implement emergency measure, generic, emergency measures, whatever they might

be. It did not spell it out, just emergency measures. This changes the pith and

substance and tone and tenor and content of this resolution altogether. I do not

think it is an attempt to make it any more friendly. If that were the case that

would be one argument. If this is anything, it is an attempt to make it more

unfriendly, because, you know, this is asking the government to do a certain

specific thing, to take a ten hour a week free allocation and make that the

benchmark from which you start.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, in my view, with all due respect to everybody,

is contrary to the original intent and pith and substance of the original

resolution, and I would submit, Sir, it is out of order.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly do wish to have an opportunity to respond the Government House

Leader's comments. I would assert, without question and without hesitation,

that this amendment is in order. To rule and suggest that this amendment is out

of order defies logic and defies common sense.

First of all with regard to the right of the Member for Port de Grave to make

it: The principal motion we are dealing with here was given on Monday past, May

5, by the Leader of the Liberal Party as a Private Member's Motion. She put it

forward as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. It is an absolute right

of another private member, the Member for Port de Grave, to propose an

amendment. That is first off.

Secondly, in terms of the reason why it is being amended today, anyone in

this Province who has listened to the media in the last forty-eight hours, since

the principal motion was given, has seen and heard this topic be the subject of

extensive, in-depth media reporting, including by the Member for Port de Grave

and the Leader of the Liberal Opposition.

That is why the amendment is being proposed, because, in fact, instead of

being contrary to the principal motion it puts meat on the bones, it is more

specific to the actual principal motion. I will point out why. Because the

motion, once you get past the

preambles, says, "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED

that this House urges Government to immediately implement emergency measures to

lessen the financial burden facing those requiring home care services in

Newfoundland and Labrador." That is the principal motion: implement

emergency measures to lessen the financial burden for those requiring home care

in the Province.

This amendment simply goes a step further, and any common sense reading of it

shows that, "Be it further resolved that this House urges government to

immediately implement as an emergency measure a 10 hour a week free allocation

of home care time where a need for such are has been identified by health care

professionals, and where they fall below the income benchmark of $31,930

established by government."

Anybody who is going to read this amendment and suggest that it does not fall

within the principal motion which called for emergency measures what the

amendment is doing, in fact, is giving a specific example of the type of an

emergency measure that government ought to implement. How can anyone ever

suggest it is not within the principal when you outline an example of what you

can do? You specify what you can do as part of those generic emergency measures

that you called for in the principal motion.

That is why it has happened today, that is why the Member for Port de Grave

has a right to make it, that is why it is within the principal motion, that is

why we did not just willy-nilly come in here as a surprise tactic to anybody, to

take anybody by surprise and say we are going to have an amendment here for the

sake of being humorous or being funny. The Member for Port de Grave wanted to be

specific, more specific than the amendment that was proposed, than the principal

motion. That is his right to do that and he has done that.

He did not just do it, by the way. We usually consult and we have consulted

with the Table Officers.

MR. RIDEOUT: That doesn't make it right.

MR. PARSONS: I do not know if it makes it right, I say to the Government

House Leader, but I am just pointing it out. The practice that we have always

followed here is that we run amendments - and I asked two questions. There were

two questions asked of the Table Officers, because I did not know, for example,

if the person who moved the motion could move the amendment: Should she, which

she wanted to do? I was told, no, that is not proper, the principal mover should

not move the amendment. Thank you very much. Is the amendment in order? Yes.

That is why I followed the advice.

Now, maybe there is going to be a change by the Chair. Maybe the Chair is

going to say, now, upon reflection or further consideration, we are going to

rule it out of order. I just want it on the record as to how it got here and why

it got here. Now, if the motion is in order and we proceed and the government

members decide they want to, as the Government House Leader says sometimes, gut

things around here. If the government members want to vote against the

amendment, that is fine. That is another issue. But there is absolutely nothing

here which restricts the right to make it.

I would refer the Chair as well to Beauchesne on page 175 when it talks about

amendments. It says in Item 567, "the object of an amendment may be either

to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to

present the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original

question." This is obviously not proposing an alternative. The first part

of it is to modify the question, to increase its acceptability. It is specific.

Secondly, Item 568 says, "It is an imperative rule that every amendment

must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed."

Anyone who is going to read this proposed amendment that gives a specific

solution to an emergency measure that is outlined in the principal motion and

suggest that it is not relevant - it obviously meets the relevancy requirement.

Item 569, sub 1: "A motion may be amended by: (

a) leaving out certain

words; (

b) leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; or (

c) inserting or adding other words." We have obviously complied with the form

of an amendment. We have obviously complied with the relevancy of an amendment.

We are permitted, in an amendment, to modify the question, which we have done.

It even goes so far - not that this is relevant necessarily to here - but,

"When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not

admissible and must be ruled out of order." There is nothing inadmissible

about this.

I do not know if the shock element was an issue here. It is obvious that this

particular amendment is in order. It is obvious that in form it is relevant. We

followed the proper advice. I do not know what else that you can do in this

House to comply with the rules.

I checked our Standing Orders, and there is nothing in our Standing Orders

which would say that this amendment is not in order. The only mention about

amendments is on page 64, Standing Order 110, and that talks about amendments in

the case of bills, not in the case of amending motions. There is absolutely

nothing in our Standing Orders to prohibit and say this is out of order. There

is nothing in our recognized authorities such as Beauchesne saying that

this amendment is out of order. In fact, everything in Beauchesne and our

orders, anything I have consulted with, suggests that it is in order. Quite

frankly, I think we did get good advice from the Table Officers and that is why

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is indeed in order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of very brief points. The

Opposition has every right to make their argument and I listened very, very

carefully to what the Opposition House Leader had to say. I just want to make

two quick points.

Your Honour consults with the Table Officers and will decide whether or not

an amendment is in order. It is not up to the Table Officers to tell any of us

that an amendment is in order. It is up to them to give us advice that we think

it might be and we will be giving whatever advice we are going to give to the

Chair, but that is the Chair's decision at the end of the day. You know, we

don't get up and argue that it is in order because the Table Officers

suggested to us that it might be in order. That is point number one. Obviously

we will live with and accept whatever the Chair's ruling is.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is also some consideration as to

whether an amendment that binds the government to spending money is in order and

Your Honour might want to consider that in your consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will ask for a recess to consider the arguments

put forward by both House Leaders, to consider the amendment and to consult with

the Speaker and the Table Clerks. The House is now in Recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The Chair has considered the arguments put forward

by both Government House Leaders. I will say, at the outset, that the Table

Clerks will provide advice on the form of an amendment. They do not make a

decision as to whether an amendment is in order. I would urge all members of the

House not to drag the Table Clerks into debate on such issues. They will simply

advise us as to whether the form of an amendment is in order and it is really up

to the Chair or the Speaker to determine whether, in fact, the amendment is in

order.

It is Private Members' Day and there is nothing in Beauchesne or the

Standing Orders to prevent an amendment being brought forward to a private

member's resolution. Any member, other than the presenting private member to a

resolution, is permitted to provide or to present an amendment to that

resolution.

This amendment does elaborate on the main motion, but it does not

significantly alter the main motion of the private member's resolution. It

simply urges government to consider but does not bind government to spend money.

The Chair, in consultation with the Speaker and the Table Clerks, find that

the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to be able to get up today and have a few comments

with respect to the motion and perhaps more specifically in support of and a

discussion around some of the initiatives and directions that our government is

taking in support of seniors.

Certainly, I would like to say at the outset, one of the challenges that all

governments face is developing comprehensive, long-term strategic directions and

plans that guide us into the future and take us in a direction that is well

thought out and well planned. It certainly seems today, by a motion on the fly

here, that it is probably why the party opposite is no longer in power, to be

making motions and then amending motions as they go in the House of Assembly. We

do not have the luxury to do that, unfortunately. We are the government and we

are expected to provide far greater leadership of the Province's funding and

to look in more detail and with more consideration at what we are doing as a

matter of public policy.

What I would like to do is touch on a number of areas with respect to seniors

and what our government has done in the past and continues to do in support of

seniors. This issue certainly is close to me, as it is, I am sure, to all of my

colleagues here. I have two grandparents who died in the last - not too distant

past, and I have two grandmothers who are currently in institutional homes. I

recognize firsthand, the value of the kinds of things that we have to do to

support our seniors and to continue to support them into the future.

I would like to touch on a couple of things from budgets present and past

over the last couple of years. The first thing I want to talk a little bit about

is in the area of programs and supports that government has committed to and

invested in.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the home support services

level and the home support care program, that in Budget 2008 brings a commitment

from government of $10.8 million for initiatives like the home support service

levels, the personal care and community home care wage rate; $1.8 million for

client subsidies; $1 million to exempt RRSPs from the financial assessment

process. All of those initiatives have been brought in by this government, in

this Budget, as a way to add support to our seniors and to give greater

financial assistance where it is required.

A second item, Mr. Speaker, that is extremely important, and I have received

extremely positive feedback on, is the Prescription Drug Program in our

Province. As colleagues here in the House are aware, there are many components

to that. To summarize, the government has extended the program now to, first of

all, provide for the inclusion of many more types of drugs under the program. As

all of us are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are many people out there who for a long

time complained and raised to our attention the fact that drugs they needed to

keep their health and to, in many cases, allow them to survive and have a decent

living style, many drugs were not included in that plan. As part of our ongoing

policy for the Prescription Drug Program, we have now expanded that to include

many more types of drugs. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, we have also made the

prices for drugs now more affordable, as part of a second phase for that.

The third piece, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention on that is that the new

program now includes more low-income individuals and low-income seniors as part

of the drug program. In other words, more people, more seniors in this Province

are able to avail of a greater variety of drugs and get them at a more

reasonable cost than they have been under past Administrations, and I think that

is a tremendous investment into the seniors in this Province.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a moment about the Seniors'

Benefit program. As all of us are aware, in the 2007 Budget the qualifying

threshold was increased by some $10,000 to include 7,000 eligible couples under

the Seniors' Benefit program. To add to that, the 2008 Budget brought the

single Seniors' Benefit up on par with the married couples, the couples

benefit. So, those are two significant initiatives that will put money back into

the hands of our seniors over the last two budget years that this government has

pursued.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have invested in personal income splitting, where

couples can reduce their taxes and put more money in their hands by splitting

their incomes. In cases where one partner has an income greater than the other

or in some cases there is only one income per family, they can now split the

income, thereby reducing the taxes that they have to pay, putting more money

back into the hands of the seniors and more disposable income that they can use

to invest in improving their quality of life.

As well, Mr. Speaker, along the same line of programs, the Home Heating

Rebate is a very popular program, as I am sure all colleagues are aware and all

those who are watching today are aware. To remind colleagues in the House and

those who are listening, the fuel rebate is $300, electricity $200, and the

coast of Labrador rebate of $400. Mr. Speaker, the global cost of that, the

global investment of that for this government is $17 million; $17 million

invested into the seniors and others in this Province, money back into their

hands to use to improve their quality of life.

AN HON. MEMBER: People who need it the most.

MR. KING: People who need it the most. That is right, Mr. Speaker.

Also, the last two I will touch on under the programs and services, Mr.

Speaker, is - of course, the reduction in the cost to register your vehicles now

puts, straight across the board for a vehicle registration, $40 back into the

hands of residents of the Province. Of course, over the last two years $340

million invested in income tax cuts in this Province that affects all residents,

which includes the seniors of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: All of those items, Mr. Speaker, put money back into the hands

of our seniors in this Province because this government recognizes the

challenges that seniors face and we recognize the need to provide as much

support as we possibly can to the seniors in this Province.

I would like to touch as well, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, on some of the

services that we have supported and invest