April 5, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the proceedings for the day, I would like to welcome to the

gallery sixty-five Grade V and Grade VI students from St. Mary's Elementary on

Waterford Bridge Road, in the District of St. John's South. They are

accompanied by teachers: Ms. Cathy Best, Ms. Millie Haylay, Ms. Catherine Rose,

Akemi Masuto, and Donna Kelland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me quote from the Vancouver Sun of January 27, 2000.

"Everyone is singing the praises of Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland, so why

not join the chorus? Experiments in theatre can often feel like torture, but the

Artistic Fraud company's unique blend of music, movement, story and staging is

instead a note-perfect piece of pure pleasure."

A Calgary reviewer referred to the play Under Wraps as an astonishing piece

which was the highlight of week at the Calgary Theatre Festival.

These and other accolades were received at by the twenty-one member St. John's

based theatre company who performed at the Banff Centre for the Arts in Calgary

and Vancouver early in the new year, and highlight the reception they received.

They also gave lectures and demonstrations to theatre students on their

innovative and exceptionally well received new form of theater, which they call

Kaleidography.

The most often heard responses to their performances and presentations was,

"When are you coming back?"

The Western Canada tour of Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland was supported by

the Canada Council, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and a number of

private sponsors.

Congratulations to Jillian Keiley, artistic director; Robert Chafe, writer

and performer; Petrina Bromley, music director, and the entire troupe on a

terrific job of representing Newfoundland and Labrador artistry and talent in

Western Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Charlie

Phillips of Conception Harbor, who tragically lost his life in the performance

of his duties as a heavy equipment operator on March 18, 2000.

As an employee of Works, Services and Transportation for twenty-nine years,

Charlie was no stranger to working long shifts often under very difficult

weather conditions. His dedication to his job as well as his loyalty to his

supervisors and his co-workers is beyond question, second only to his love and

concern for his family.

Charlie valued family, both his immediate and extended family, as the most

important part of his life. He fondly referred to his daughters as Charlie's

Angels, as he and Rose did everything in their power to instill in them strong

Christian values. Even on that fateful night, Charlie's last contact with his

family was a phone call to his daughters, Leslie and Deirdre, checking to see if

they were safely home and not venturing out on such a terrible night.

Charlie enjoyed life and lived it to the fullest. He was perhaps the most

recognized individual in that part of the Bay. Everyone knew him. His ready

smile, his wit, his ability to make people laugh, endeared him to all. His

pastimes were ice fishing and bingo. His most outstanding quality was his habit

of always going the extra mile for the people he served, always being prepared

to lend a helping hand. Charlie will not soon be forgotten by those who knew

him.

He was born the sixth son to Patrick and Mary (nee Cole) Philips in a family

of nine brothers and one sister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: He was born in Placentia but spent his childhood and

teenage years in Colliers. He resided in Conception Harbor with his wife Rose

and his two daughters, Leslie and Deirdre. I join, I am sure, with all the

members of this House in remembering a very decent human being who will be

missed greatly. As he was one for great Irish music, I would finish off with one

of his favorite verses, An Irish Blessing. It reads:

May the road rise to meet you

May the wind be ever at your back

May the sun shine on your face

May the rain fall softly on your fields

May God continue to hold you in the palm of his hand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seven months ago I asked two of our Province's most eminent educators, Dr.

Len Williams and Dr. Ron Sparkes, to undertake a critical examination of the

delivery of education in our schools and to make recommendations on matters of

curriculum and supports to the K-12 education system, including a new framework

for the allocation of teachers. Today I released the report of the Ministerial

Panel, an insightful and directional report that I believe will help bring

renewed strength and stability to our education system.

While the report was submitted to me just a few days again, I felt it was

important to release it immediately. This Panel's entire process has been very

public one, one with input from parents, educators, students and many other

stakeholder groups. The implementation process will be public as well.

Both Dr. Williams and Dr. Sparkes have joined us in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Accompanying both of them is the Executive Secretary to the

Panel, Mr. Gerald Galway.

The Panel had a broad mandate which expanded as parents, educators and other

interested individuals and groups brought forward a range of issues and concerns

related to student learning in classrooms. It is clear from my first reading of

the report that the Panel has responded with recommendations that address these

issues. The Panel members have dealt with the key issues in a very direct

manner, setting a course for education in this Province. That course begins by

designating and ensuring access to an essential program linked to our

Essential Graduation Learnings which includes, in addition to areas such as

mathematics and science, music, art, and a Newfoundland and Labrador history

program for all students. The Panel then built a teacher allocation framework

around this essential program while recognizing the very real differences

inherent in schools of different sizes, the need for greater resource levels in

the early grades, the challenges faced by schools in rural communities, and the

need for a new model of distance learning. The new framework also addresses

provision of support resources such as additional guidance counselors, reading

and early literacy specialists, and a greater allocation of administrative time.

In their report, Drs. Sparkes and Williams bring forward significant

recommendations on supports for learning, teacher education and professional

development, and the meaningful integration of new technologies into both

educational content and delivery. They further recognize the need to strengthen

the areas of student assessment, certification and school-level accountability.

I am pleased to announce today that government has accepted, in principle,

the major recommendations of the report, including the recommendation of a new

framework for teacher allocations that will retain some 340 teachers who, under

the previous allocation formula, would have been lost due to enrolment decline.

Government will also act immediately to reinstate public examinations in 2001 in

a number of third year high school courses; we will develop comprehensive

assessments in grade III, VI and IX, and we will develop a system of

school-level public reports using key performance indicators. We will hire a

music consultant in the Department of Education, and we encourage boards to

proceed immediately to hire reading specialists. We will proceed as well to hire

two auditors to ensure the best educational and administrative practices are

followed at the district and school levels. In the 2000-2001 Budget, we have

included additional funding for the implementation of curriculum and for teacher

professional development. Within the next week my officials will be reviewing

the report in detail and will convene an implementation team to move forward

immediately on those proposals and recommendations put forth by the Panel which

don't have an impact on collective bargaining.

As minister, I also recognize this report as a significant blueprint for

education delivery in our Province, a province faced with a 30 per cent to 40

per cent student enrolment decline over the next ten years, mainly in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. We must ensure that all students, in all schools and

communities, are afforded opportunities to attain knowledge and skills from a

range of courses and programs.

The implementation of the Panel's recommendations on distance learning will

not only improve the current system, but will position the Province as an

innovator in rural and remote education delivery.

Government will move immediately to implement the Panel's proposal related

to distance learning. A director will be hired, and course development under the

new model will begin. This new model represents a departure from the current

teleconference model, a model which, I hasten to add, has served us well for

many years, in that many more courses will be offered, delivery will be more

flexible, and access will be from any computer with Internet access or CD-ROM

capabilities. The new system will keep many of the strengths of the present

system, such as remote teachers or E-teachers, but will also involve mediating

teachers with students in classrooms. This is not a feature of the current

system. The centre will be up and running in its development phase this spring

and will enrol its first high school students in the 2001-2002 school year with

expansion to adult learners in the years following.

I am very excited about this mode of delivery, particularly because of the

opportunity it will present to students, whose access to courses such as music,

art and technology would otherwise be limited and because it will provide, in a

very meaningful way, a level of comfort and competence with new technologies -

skills students will need in order to avail themselves of opportunities in the

modern world.

The Ministerial Panel is to be commended for its thorough consultations and

deliberations. The review was a challenging one given the short time frame, the

number of issues and concerns and the high level of interest, not only from the

education sector, but from many other interested groups in the Province. The

environment of declining enrolments and structural reform added to the

complexity of the situation. This Panel approached the task with dedication and

vision and has developed a model of educational delivery which will shape the

future of education in this Province for many years to come.

This government is committed to reducing program disparity and ensuring

equality of access for all students regardless of the location of their

community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The distance learning component of the Panel's report,

together with the teacher allocation framework and the designation of an

essential program, are components of an overall framework designed to realize

these goals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for supplying me a copy of the statement prior to the

House sitting. The ministerial report from Drs. Williams and Sparkes has finally

arrived, albeit late, and at first glance appears to address many concerns the

students, educators, parents and interested parties have been expressing. I say

there is hope that finally true educational reform is going to begin, because I

say to the minister that the only thing we have seen in the last eight years is

restructuring: schools closing, buildings closing. We have not seen what we need

to see in the classrooms.

The restructuring has taken place but the reform has not, so I look forward

to the opportunity and the challenge to make a second attempt - and I say a

second attempt - to convince this government of the directions it should be

taking to establish an education system in this Province second to none in this

country. Again, a second chance, because if you went back to Hansard in 1992, I

am sure when the report of 1992 was released by Dr. Williams the same thing

would have been said as you said here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: When the Canning Report was released in 1996 I am sure the

same thing was said. There was a delay in getting the report to me today, but I

might say that all I had to do was go back to the report of 1992 because what is

contained in 1992 was a good job. It was a direction the government should have

taken. Eight years has now gone by and it is about time, I say to you minister,

that what should be done is going to be done. We will hold you accountable to

your guarantee today that you will begin educational reform in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, look forward to a detailed review of the report of Drs. Len Williams

and Ron Sparkes, two very experienced and proper people to be conducting such a

review of what is after all the most important aspect of education. We have gone

through the structural changes that were required. The emphasis here obviously

is on the key issue as to what kind of programs we have and how we are

delivering them. There were many problems in the system, not the least of which

was the teacher allocation formula. Now at least we won't have to listen to

the minister say year after year: We could have taken away 300 or 400 teachers

but we didn't really, so aren't we wonderful?

Hopefully the new formula will be one that is appropriate to the situation

that we have with a declining enrollment, particularly stressing rural systems.

We have problems with the distance learning which appear to be addressed here. I

hope the new system will work. There are speciality programs such as music, art

and technology programs which ought to be available to every student in the

Province and it looks like the minister is committed to making sure that that is

possible. I will be pleased to read the full report, and will also be anxious to

see that these recommendations - and I cannot assume that they are all good -

but that the recommendations which need to be implemented will be implemented

very quickly to the benefit of students all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform hon. members that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador and Memorial University have signed a Memorandum of

Understanding with the Government of Nunavut on Telemedicine.

This understanding between our Province and our newest territory will enable

a sharing of information in the field of Telehealth and Telemedicine, will

result in a greater understanding of the best practices in each jurisdiction,

and will allow an exchange of knowledge on program content and accepted

technology in these fields. As a result of the MOU, Newfoundland and Labrador

and Nunavut hope to be able to connect remote communities together to further

explore the clinical, social, educational and cultural dimensions of managing a

Telehealth or Telemedicine Network.

While this MOU is aimed at allowing both jurisdictions to learn more about

the innovative means of delivering health services in remote areas, it is also

unique in that it was signed on a date of significance for both our Province and

our newest territory. March 31 marked the 51 st anniversary of

Newfoundland's joining with Canada, and it was the eve of the 1 st

anniversary of Nunavut as Canada's newest territory. Also noteworthy was the

fact that Nunavut's signatory to the MOU was the Minister of Health and Social

Services, the hon. Ed Picco, who is a native of Portugal Cove. Another

Newfoundlander, the hon. Dennis Furlong, New Brunswick's health minister,

witnessed the signing ceremony at the ministers' meeting in Markham, Ontario,

on March 31.

Not only does today's announcement highlight the strength of partnerships

between our governments and educational facilities for the betterment of the

health of all Canadians, it is a tribute to the success of the people of this

Province who have taken on public policy leadership positions throughout the

country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome any exchange in advanced medicine with Telemedicine,

Telehealth and with people in any part of the country. I think it is important.

I am certainly interested in finding out a little more in depth what actual

aspects of it are going to be carried out and what the perceived advantages can

be. I know we have shared information with other provinces in this country on

numerous areas like health prevention, health promotion and in treatment of

illness. We have drug therapies in use in other provinces all across this

country. We have had access to it and we haven't moved to do anything about

it. Hopefully, it is an exchange that is going to put something into action, a

concrete plan, not something that is just going to be for convenience and

information that we are not going to act on. Because information and facts and

things don't have any particular relevance to the people unless we are

prepared to act and get a result because of that shared information.

We have seen the report here today on the same thing, Our Children Our

Future from 1992 which we haven't acted on, and now another one today. Let's

hope we will reap benefits. I support advances, especially in northern areas and

parts of our Province. We can benefit by making accessible high technology to

help in the diagnosis too, and particularly in prevention and so on and the

treatment of various illnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased to see the development of a special relationship

between Newfoundland and Labrador and the new territory of Nunavut, particularly

in the area of Telemedicine where our university, Memorial University, has

provided a strong leadership in developing Telemedicine and new ways of

delivering medical services. Of course, our relationship with Nunavut goes back

many years. In fact, in Iqaluit, as many members will know, they watch the

nightly news from Newfoundland and Labrador and many Newfoundlanders live there

including, as the minister mentioned, the hon. Ed Picco and others. We look

forward to this being a successful project of cooperation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce today that this

Province has given its support to the federal government to ratify the

International Labour Organization's Convention 182, which will attempt to

eliminate the worst forms of child labour throughout the world.

Convention 182 addresses the urgent need to protect children from such things

as slavery, sexual exploitation, hazardous work, forced recruitment in armed

conflict, the sale and trafficking of children, bondage and compulsory labour.

Although these activities are illegal in both this Province and in Canada as a

whole, they are, quite sadly, a common practice in other countries. Canada's

becoming party to this Convention will demonstrate to the world its commitment

to the protection of all the world's children.

In Canada, only the federal government has jurisdiction to ratify an

international convention and to do so they need the consent of all provinces and

territories. After extensive review and consultation with federal officials,

this government feels it must give its consent and support to this Convention to

protect all the world's children.

Thank you.

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

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

I am sure I speak on behalf of all my colleagues to endorse government's

support of Convention 182 for the protection of the world's children. I don't

think we should feel snug about the welfare of Canada's children. We just have

to look at a report released in January by the Canadian Council on Social

Development, and it shows many more young people are homeless and poor in our

country. Newfoundland, unfortunately, still tops that list. Getting access to

child care is more difficult. Teen smoking has increased by 40 per cent. One of

the most startling conclusions is the growth of a child sex trade -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

One of the most startling -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: Th study's most startling conclusion is the growth of a

child sex trade in Canada. Teens' risk of getting sexually transmitted

diseases has increased and half the people who use food banks are under

eighteen. Once again, Newfoundland tops that list.

So while we endorse Convention 182 for the protection of all the world's

children, I think we should also be cognizant of the welfare of the children in

Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I feel, too, it is

important for countries like Canada to pursue vigorously the elimination of

child labour. Child exploitation in any form is not acceptable and we have to

work extensively towards wiping it out. I have had the occasion to travel

extensively through Central America on a couple of occasions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that while in this

country we do not have child labour as a problem per se, many Canadian companies

do employ child labour in some of the countries they operate in and are allowed

to get away with it. So I think it is important we keep continuing to support

any effort and all initiatives to end child labour throughout the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Before I begin Question Period, I want to acknowledge, on behalf of my

colleague for St. John's South, and welcome the students from his district

into the gallery. Unfortunately, he could not be here today. He is attending a

funeral of a constituent of his and I want, just for the record, to acknowledge

the people in the gallery and welcome them here on his behalf.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy on a

radio program talking about the impediments of getting an electrical in-feed to

the Island. He talked about pursuing alternative energy sources to the Lower

Churchill, such as wind power and natural gas.

The Minister of Mines and Energy has not put forward any shred of evidence

whatsoever that wind power or natural gas is a cheaper energy source for the

Province than electricity from Labrador. I would like to ask him this question.

If there is such an analysis done, if you do have the proof that would make you

pursue that direction, where is it? Can you table it and show us where it is

today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must admit, first of all, that the inspiration to mention wind power was

based on the hon. member's performance here in the House, but that aside,

these have been costed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro has brought forward, in recent

times, a proposal to meet the growing energy demands on the Island. These

include development of hydro, co-generation and wind power, so we are costing

them presently and those calculations are being done.

AN HON. MEMBER: No evidence whatsoever. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would provide advice to the minister: don't quit your

day job if that is the type of humour you are going to offer to the people of

the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: This week, because of questioning, we have found out

finally that the federal government is not going to participate in any way,

shape or form in terms of an in-feed to the Island. We have discovered, because

of questioning, that there is no agreement on royalties with respect to the

tentative agreement on Lower Churchill. It is my understanding, as well, that

the government is having serious difficulties in negotiations, getting Quebec to

agree that the engineering management, procurement offices, should be located in

the Province, or that first consideration to Newfoundland companies where there

bids are competitive - they are having trouble to get the Province of Quebec to

agree.

I would like to ask the minister this question. Could he confirm that Quebec

is not in agreement with this conditions that Newfoundland has laid down as

principles acceptable for any potential Lower Churchill deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not the forum to bring forward evidence. The whole point about the

power generation, to start with, it is something that is done before the PUB.

Newfoundland Hydro is, in fact, bringing forward to the PUB, on a timely basis,

an energy plan for the near future to meet demand. That will include a number of

proposals and among those that will be evaluated is wind power. Obviously,

natural gas is not going to be efficient if it has to be brought in - and there

is no real good means of shipment or a way to use it. Natural gas is a longer

term prospect. It will, to some extent, depend on when the natural gas will be

produced offshore, when it will be brought ashore, and at that point we expect

it will be efficient.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask him the question again: Could he confirm that

the Government of Quebec is not in agreement with the conditions that the

Province has set down for an acceptable Lower Churchill agreement? Could he

confirm that, yes or no?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the last several days, there is no

agreement with the Province of Quebec. We are apart on several issues. When

there is an agreement we will say what the agreement is, and what it is with

respect to each of the issues.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is somewhat proficient in

of an

article published in Quebec, in Le Devoir . In the article, Premier

Bouchard says, "...a joint project cannot be managed only by one party, and

the benefits can't be enjoyed only by one party."

I would like to ask the minister this question: In view of the fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the crowd opposite will let

me get to the question, I will ask it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: In view of the fact that Premier Bouchard has said openly

in this

article that he does not agree with the conditions laid down in the

Throne Speech by the government, I will ask him again: Is this the position of

the Province of Quebec, that no procurement activities will take place in this

Province, or the sole procurement activities will take place in this Province;

that engineering for the project will take place in this Province solely, and

that three - this is what you said in the Throne Speech, I remind the Government

House Leader - the third condition outlined in the Throne Speech, that first

consideration be given to Newfoundland companies where they are seen

competitive, market driven and deliver a quality product.

Has the Quebec Government disagreed with that? Certainly Bouchard seems to

indicate publicly that they have. Could you respond, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, you would expect the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition to interpret his own sources correctly. That is not what Premier

Bouchard said. What Premier Bouchard said -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, I would love to have a copy.

What he just quoted in this House that Premier Bouchard said was that there

would be benefits for the Province of Quebec. Yes, there will be, and there will

be more substantial benefits for this Province; but, for example, we don't

manufacture electrical turbines here in this Province. They will probably be

procured elsewhere in the country, and the benefits of going ahead with a $10

billion project or a $6 billion project in this country would benefit not only

this Province, where most of the substantial benefits would arise, but would

also obviously benefit the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario, and

others. Now if the hon. member thinks there is something wrong with that, I

would like to know the basis for his assumptions.

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

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

I will send a copy over to the minister. Let me ask him: Has he heard this?

Has he heard this, is the question: "The government of Quebec considers

unrealistic, even absurd, the new position taken by Newfoundland, that

Newfoundlanders should manage and be the principle beneficiaries of the economic

returns of the development of the Lower Churchill hydro-electric project."

I will ask you again: Based upon that statement, based upon the Government of

Quebec indicating they think it is unrealistic and absurd, are you experiencing

extreme difficulties in ensuring that what you have laid out as the principles

in the Throne Speech - has the Government of Quebec balked and said: No, we will

not agree with the principles laid out by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador? This

article certainly indicates that it has.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Put very simply, Mr. Speaker, there will be no agreement with

Quebec on the Lower Churchill that does not meet the five principles we have

laid down in the Throne Speech on pages four and five, period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the framework agreement envisaged two markets

for Lower Churchill power, essentially: one to Quebec which would then take our

power and market it, take a marketing fee, and the other to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Quebec and Newfoundland will each share equally in 50 per cent of the cost of

building transmission lines to the border of Quebec where the power will enter

the Quebec grid; however, Newfoundland, according to the minister, this

Province, has to pay the entire cost to bring a transmission line to the Island.

That is what he said yesterday, that we have to bear the brunt of it ourselves.

Why can't the partners in this agreement share jointly in the cost, if cost

has become the only factor whereby - the federal government has opted out

entirely. Why is it that we can have it one way in terms of our power going to

the Quebec border, but we can't have it our way in terms of getting it to the

Island of Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member doesn't understand the issues

around which we were negotiating. It is quite the opposite. What the original

frame -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: If the hon. member wishes me to explain what was in it, I will

kindly do so. At the time that we negotiated this, one of the principles around

which we negotiated was that the transmission right from the source of which it

was generated at Gull Island, the cost of transmission from there through Quebec

to where it would largely be sold, either in Ontario or down in the States,

would be built at the cost of Quebec. It would be rolled in with the

transmission grid, all of the transmission, including -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked me a question

and I am telling what the framework agreement says. Now, if he wants to say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can argue here all he wants that

black is white and white is black, but if he wants to read what the framework

agreement says, it says that the total cost of transmission, from the source at

Gull Island through Quebec, all the additional costs, would be borne by the

Quebec transmission grid. That would be rolled into the cost base that would be

paid by the people who pay utility fees in Quebec. The cost of transmission in

Newfoundland - because we are going to use it - would be paid by the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, period.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear in the framework agreement. I

understand it equally as much as he does.

I will ask him this question. We have difficulties in negotiating a royalty

regime before construction costs are paid back; we have difficulties in getting

the Province of Quebec to adhere to the principles laid down as we put them

here. There is no deal on an in-feed to the transmission. The big diversions, in

terms of the St. Jean and the Romaine, which was heralded as one of the reasons

why we should proceed with this project, are now law.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, could you answer this question: Are there any

reasons left why we should proceed with a development on the Lower Churchill

that is obviously not in the best interests of the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there may or may not be an agreement with Hydro

Quebec and Quebec, that depends on whether or not we can negotiate a deal that

is in the best interests of the people of the Province. I can tell him, frankly,

that if there is not a deal that Quebec will agree to that is in the best

interest of the people of this Province, there will be no deal, just as he says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, my questions will be to the Minister of Justice

and Attorney General.

The government has embarked on a policy to subvert the public's right of

access under the Freedom of Information Act and to information in the records of

government departments and agencies. Let me quote for the minister the purpose

clause from the Freedom of Information Act. The purpose clause says this:

"The purpose of this Act is to provide a right of access by the public to

information in records of departments and to subject that right only to specific

and limited exceptions necessary for the operation of the departments and for

the protection of personal privacy."

Mr. Speaker, that right has been restricted and denied illegally at every

turn. The worst of all is, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General has

been put in charge of the government's censorship strategy. So, I ask the

minister: Why has he, the chief law enforcement officer in this Province,

accepted, first of all, this unbecoming role? Why has he allowed the Ministry of

Justice and the Attorney General's Department to become the ministry of

government censorship?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Freedom of Information Act, which is

certainly a very valuable and important piece of legislation in this Province,

was, I believe, enacted in 1981 by the previous administration. So, as to the

contents of it and validity of it, we certainly, as a following administration,

have no problem with seeing that it is carried out, and it has been since that

time.

The act does, as the hon. Member for Lewisporte states, provide a right to

the access. The applications that persons make are generally done through the

Ministry of Justice. The minister, in turn, forwards the request to the

department in particular that is concerned.

As again correctly stated by the hon. Member for Lewisporte, there are

certain exceptions outlined in the act. The role that the Department of Justice

plays, once we refer the request to the appropriate department is to merely

provide any advice after that point which that particular department might

request as to the

interpretation of any

section of the act or any other act. The

Department of Justice, for example, does not just render advice regarding the

Freedom of Information Act. The Department of Justice renders advice and

guidance to all departments of government regarding the

interpretation of any

statue or any regulation.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that the act

provides very specifically that only the minister of a department that receives

a request for information can decide to grant or deny the request. The minister

knows that, and the minister knows that is not what is happening. The

instructions have gone out to all ministers and to all deputy ministers from the

Premier's office to route the request through the minister's office, and

that is a violation of the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I ask the minister again, as the person in this Province who

has a sacred obligation to uphold the law: Why are you willing to be a

participate in this scheme to circumvent the law and deny citizens their legal

right under the Freedom of Information Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I will state it again for clarity, if I wasn't

clear the first time around. The Department of Justice is not interfering with

the proper administration of the Freedom of Information Act. Anyone who makes a

request comes through the Department of Justice and we refer it, as required

under the act, to the department that has the information in question.

There are some sections of the Freedom of Information Act, for example

sections 9, 10, and 11, which deal with the exceptions. Sections 9 and 10 deal

with mandatory exceptions where we cannot release it, and

section 10 leaves some

discretionary...

With regards to the exercise of the discretion, it is not the Department of

Justice which exercises the discretion. That depends upon the minister in the

department which holds the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member of Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if the minister believes what he just said, he

is living in a fantasy world. Let me ask the minister this: Is he aware that his

colleague, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, had said publicly on

the airwaves a few weeks ago to a journalist in this Province, after she

requested information about buried fuel tanks, after her request was denied,

that he wanted to release the information but the minister would not allow him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Is the minister aware of that?

Let me ask the minister: What gives the minister the legal right to deny his

colleague that request? It is certainly not the Freedom of Information Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: That information is not correct. I did not tell the reporter

that I wanted to release any information at all.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the questions. I feel

they can be dealt with dispassionately, without emotion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get on with his answer.

MR. PARSONS: I would point out again, it is not the position of the

Minister of Justice to exercise the discretion that is permitted under

section

11 of the act. The minister merely provides advice, and my department provides

advice. It is up to the minister of the department which possesses the

information to exercise the discretion, and this department - to clarify the

learned member's questioning - this department did not at any time advise the

hon. Mr. McLean or anyone else to do or not to do something. We merely explained

what the provisions of the act are, and it is up to the hon. Mr. McLean or any

other minister in this government to exercise their discretion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. A

long waiting list for diagnostic testing is putting in jeopardy the health of

many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I spoke with a lady a few days ago who, in February, had a twelve centimeter

in diameter tumor on her kidneys and she was told she had to wait almost three

weeks to get an MRI. She had already undergone a bone marrow test, a CAT scan,

and an ultrasound. She was so sick at home, her husband had to take her to the

emergency department of the Health Sciences where she was admitted. She was

given another CAT scan two days later, an angiogram, and she still couldn't

get an MRI. Finally, after six days, she was given an emergency MRI and two days

later underwent surgery to have a tumor that had doubled in size in that period

- a tumor over ten pounds - removed from her kidneys. Her doctor said it was a

life and death situation.

I ask the minister: Should people have to endure such agony and long waiting

periods to get the medical attention they need?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the issue any time an individual in a medical circumstance is dealt

with by a physician in the Province, that is appropriately where it should be

dealt with, not in the Legislature. We are not doctors, we are not physicians.

We don't know what the diagnosis is, we don't know what the circumstance is,

and it is not a political issue, quite frankly.

The reality is this. While that particular individual - I take the hon.

member at his word because he is known to be a truthful and sincere member of

this Legislature - may have endured a waiting period at this particular point in

time; the reality in Newfoundland and Labrador today, in the year 2000, is that

we have more advanced and more of every single diagnostic piece of equipment

available in the world than we have ever had in our history. The same person

four, five or six years ago might have had none of the tests done that he just

described because it wouldn't have been available and possible in Newfoundland

and Labrador. We are saving more lives in Newfoundland and Labrador today on a

daily basis than we ever have in the history of the Province.

It is most unfortunate, when the physicians and the other professionals they

work with in the system, find out that a particular person, based on a degree of

emergency and urgency determined by the doctors - because if the doctor had

indicated on day one -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - that it was an absolute emergency, the same emergency

treatment that was given six days later would have been done on day one if the

doctor had said it was an emergency.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have the verbatim account of that family here, I might say to the minister.

It is a political issue because of the funding for diagnostic equipment. There

is only one MRI in this Province, and there is not sufficient funding to allow

it to operate today with the emergency cases that are there, not say the urgent

cases or routine cases. It is not there to do that. It is a political issue, it

is a funding issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister: Why is it that the one MRI

machine that sits here in this Province, that was brought in at a cost well in

excess of $1 million, sits idle over 50 per cent of the time? Why can't this

machine be utilized eighteen hours to twenty hours a day as is done in many

other provinces in this country?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the hon. member at least admitting that he wants to make these

kinds of issues political matters instead of recognizing that they are health

care matters, and very important and sensitive health care matters to the

families and the individuals involved.

With respect to the funding issue that he says is a political matter, the

fact of the matter is that in Newfoundland and Labrador - as I indicated in

answering the last question - we have just provided in this last Budget, and in

the previous two or three budgets, more funding than has ever been provided

previously in the history of the Province for additional equipment, for

additional staff that need to run and operate the equipment, and interpret the

results. Always, and in every case, the use of any diagnostic tool is absolutely

determined by the availability of the professionals to utilize that particular

tool and also to interpret and then apply the results.

The hon. member knows, because he has been the health care critic for several

years, that there is a shortage in the whole country - not only the whole

country, in the whole world -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - of certain professionals in the health care sector, which

is a debate that has been going on not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in

all of North America and around the world in the last few years. We are doing

our very best in a whole range of areas to make sure we can attract and retain

the appropriate professionals. Because you can have all the equipment in the

world, but if you haven't got the trained professional staff it is useless

equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: We are trying to get the balance, we are trying to continue

the funding, and we will keep working at it to the best of our ability, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First he is admitting it not political and now he is saying it is. It is

funding for resources to do it.

A man from the West Coast had a seizure a couple of months ago and he has to

wait six months to get an MRI. That man is a truck driver. He has lost his

license until he gets medical clearance. He can't get the clearance until

appropriate diagnostic testing is done. I wanted to ask the minister: Is it fair

and reasonable to expect somebody to wait six months to get an MRI in this

Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What would be reasonable would be if we got a consistent approach from the

Opposition in the provincial government's attempts to try to get the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: This is a very important point. To try to get the Government

of Canada, which for some unknown reason is resisting reinstating health care

funding in the provinces and territories where health care delivery services are

provided.

Mr. Speaker, the very person that just asked the question - today admitting

that he wants to make it a political issue because we do not have enough money -

Why should we give more money to Newfoundland and Labrador when he is saying

there is already $100 million wasted in Newfoundland and Labrador? Now he says

today: Put in some more money!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Last week he was saying we are wasting it by the tens and

hundreds of millions of dollars! This week he wants more money, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Based on national statistics,

upwards of 800 people per year die in Newfoundland and Labrador due to smoking

related illnesses. The Liberal government, both in 1997 and again in 1999,

committed itself to supporting - and I quote from page 125 of the Liberal

manifesto in the last election - "a lawsuit against cigarette manufacturers

to seek compensation for the deaths and diseases caused by tobacco use."

Would the Minister of Justice give us a report on government's progress to

date? How much do they anticipate receiving from such a lawsuit? When will they

file a statement of claim? Are they contemplating legislation in this House to

enable the litigation to go forward as was required in British Columbia?

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question, actually.

The Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Department of Health and

Community Services, in the very near future will be making a public announcement

as to exactly where this health recovery initiative stands. I would inform the

hon. member - and he is probably aware being a solicitor himself - that the

British Columbia government initiated this type of process some months ago,

actually a couple of years ago, and in order to initiate the actual statement of

claim there was some question about the nature of the legislation that one would

require. In their particular case in British Columbia they did draft a piece of

legislation so that they could initiate a statement of claim against the tobacco

companies, and they had it referenced to their Court of Appeal which in January

of this year made a decision that certain parts of that legislation were

unconstitutional.

Approximately 10 per cent of that particular legislation had defective parts,

shall we say, or unconstitutional provisions. I understand as recently as two

weeks ago that the BC government have now decided under their new premiership

and a new AG, as I understand it, to proceed with the legislative agenda they

had, and a piece of legislation they had, less the defective portions. We, of

course, in this Province have been closely monitoring what the British Columbia

situation is doing because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: - we intend, of course - and will be following a similar

type of procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has, of course as the minister knows,

confirmed that the Province does have the right to sue for the recovery of

health care costs. Based on the BC experience and their court decisions, does

the minister intend to bring in legislation in this session of the House to

enable a proper lawsuit to go forward so that we can recover some of the health

care costs that we have had to spend to look after people who have been damaged

by the tobacco industry in smoking?

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say at this time that the government

does intend to draft legislation to launch the tobacco cost recovery initiative.

Whether or not it will proceed in this sitting of the House is certainly not

known at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Education. I have just reviewed, minister, the report of the Ministerial Panel

on the delivery of education. My first reaction is that I have seen most, if not

all, of the recommendation before in the royal commission report, the Canning

report, and other reports in this decade. You and your predecessors ignored

these recommendations in those reports. What do you plan to do differently this

time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if I could suggest this to the hon. member

opposite, he might want to take some time and actually read the report. As he

said, he just got it before he came in today. There are numerous recommendations

in there, very valid recommendations, and I expect that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: He got it when he was supposed to get it, which was just before

the House opened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Has the minister concluded her answer?

MS FOOTE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, you have set up an implementation team to move

forward immediately with these recommendations. That is exactly what was done

after the Royal Commission in 1992, but nothing happened then. I ask you again,

will it be different this time?

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

MS FOOTE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne; time for

one quick question.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, there is nothing here again that has not been

studied before. You did not need to study the recommendations in this again to

plan some action. It is just another put off to delay, for some reason or

another. Again, what is your guarantee that you will implement these

recommendations immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it hard to believe that the hon. member opposite

was actually a principal of a school before he came into this hon. House. All I

can say is that this is a very informed document -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very informed document written by two

very credible individuals, two eminent educators in the field of education in

this Province, two individuals that I would put up against the member opposite

any day -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: - who is saying for us to take our time and review this

document, but who also acknowledges that we are prepared to move on the

recommendations in this document as soon as we can.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition and a long list of petitions from my

district concerning road conditions on the Baie Verte Peninsula and in the

District of Baie Verte. This particular petition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: We will try that again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present another petition from the people in my district concerning the

conditions of roads.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland with

the following prayer:

WHEREAS the deplorable and unfit conditions of the La Scie Highway, Route

414, makes traveling to and from school unsafe for our children; and

WHEREAS road conditions jeopardize the safety of the traveling public and

betray a lack of commitment to rural areas to our Province;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned residents of La Scie and the surrounding area

in the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the government to upgrade and

pave Highway 414.

Mr. Speaker, I am continuing to present petitions in this House from people

who sent them to me with the same request: a common decency request that road

that are deplorable.... Just as late as last Friday, I went to a community in

Ming's Bight for a function and I lost the front end of the car with the road

conditions heading down the La Scie Highway.

The minister knows, his officials know - everybody knows; there is no doubt

about who knows - that the conditions on that particular highway are probably

the worst - if not, they are among the worst - conditions in the Province. It is

a major trunk road. It was a mistake that it was not done with the Regional

Trunk Roads Agreement; it should have been included. There are eleven

communities on that particular peninsula, and not just communities on this

particular road. Even on this petition there are a lot of names that appear from

Baie Verte, Harbour Round, Coachman's Cove and so on, from all around the

peninsula, because they know how important that highway is to the economic

development on that peninsula. They know, besides the safety of the school

children and the general public, and the deplorable conditions, that the La Scie

area - with the plant in that area and the heavy trucks going over there - that

if we are going to see further economic development of the plant in La Scie,

this particular road has to be done. There is no question about it. Also added

to that, with economic development now, is the potential for further mine

development in that area. Of course we have seen the success of Nugget Pond.

In general, what people are asking for - and they believe they have every

just right in saying so - is that they should have a decent road to travel over.

This is not a request anymore by these people; it is a demand. When they see

government spending, they believe at the root of the problem there is not enough

funding in the provincial roads budget which works out this year to somewhere

between $12 million and $14 million for a problem that looks something like $300

million. It is a problem that has been festering. These people have had enough.

They won't stand for it anymore. I don't think they have to in this day and

age, as we go into a new millennium in the year 2000. That road has to be done;

there is no question about it. The camera crews of CBC who were down there just

a short week ago can verify it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: That is the reality of it. It has to be addressed and it has

to be addressed immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we go to the motion put forward by the

hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a resolution dealing with the Licensed Practical

Nurses in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The resolution reads:

WHEREAS Licensed Practical Nurses undergo an intensive twelve months of

training where they learn a broad array of nursing procedures; and

WHEREAS upon graduation LPNs are not permitted to work within their full

scope of practice; and

WHEREAS the duties that LPNs are permitted to practice varies from one

nursing unit to another and from one medical institution to another;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House strongly encourage the

Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association and the Department of Health

and Community Services to allow Licensed Practical Nurses to work within their

full scope of practice; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House strongly encourage the

Minister of Health and Community Services to make this a priority issue.

Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the hon. Member for

Humber East, who is in the Chair today, originally put forth this resolution and

did all the ground work but, because he is in the Chair, I am presenting it on

his behalf.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery a group

of Licensed Practical Nurses from around the Province. They are a very competent

and caring group of health care providers, one which we should commend for the

yeoman service they provide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to give a special welcome to a

good friend of mine, an LPN and the Mayor of Summerford, Mr. Clayton LeDrew.

Mr. Speaker, to become an LPN, an individual must undergo twelve months of

intensive training at one of a number of post-secondary institutions around the

Province, all of which fall under the auspices of the Centre for Nursing

Studies. Upon completion of this course, these individuals must write a

comprehensive exam to become a Licensed Practical Nurse and they are also

licensed by the Council of Licensed Practical Nurses.

All LPNs do the same courses, write the same exams, are licensed by the same

governing body; however, that is where their similarities end or stop. Once

hired by a health care institution or by a board, the scope of their practice

for the duties they are permitted to perform changes. What I am saying is that

different boards only allow LPNs to perform certain duties and that these duties

change or vary from one hospital to another. In fact, the scope of duties for an

LPN differs from one nursing unit to another nursing unit in the same

institution. Let me give you some examples so as to better clarify what I am

trying to say. LPNs are permitted to do glucometer readings in one institution

but not in another. Similarly, they are permitted to set up intravenous

equipment in one institution but not in another. Furthermore, LPNs are permitted

to provide catheter care in one institution but not in another. If this sounds

ludicrous, the duties and the scope of duties for LPNs can change from one floor

or another or from one nursing unit to another in the same hospital or health

care institution.

Neither I nor the Licensed Practical Nurses who are in the gallery, or those

around the Province, are asking government or the health care boards to assign

extra duties to LPNs for which they are not qualified to perform. Neither are we

asking that they take over duties prescribed to other professional in the health

care field. All I am asking is that Licensed Practical Nurses be permitted to

perform the full scope of duties for which they are educated and trained.

At the present time, a pilot program is being carried out at the Dr. Hugh

Twomey Centre in Botwood. It has as its goal the training of LPNs to administer

medications without the supervision of a register nurse or other medical

personnel. This pilot is sponsored by the Center for Nursing Studies and the

Central West Health Board. While it may be unfair for me to pre-judge the

outcome, and despite the support of the Council of Licensed Practical Nurses and

the Association of Registered Nurses, it is fair to say that some institutions

in the Province will not permit LPNs to administer medication without

supervision.

If this is the case, one has to ask why LPNs would take the time and effort

to do post-graduate courses in their field if they can't even perform the

duties for which they are already trained.

I believe the reason they take these extra courses is because they care and,

most of all, because they want to reach their full potential. I don't think

any professional wants to carry out part of the duties for which they are

trained. I am certain that some of the media people who sit in our gallery every

day certainly wouldn't want just to cover one side of the House or one party.

Neither do I think that MHAs who sit in the House would like only to represent a

certain group within their district. I am certain that doctors in this Province

wouldn't want to be only allowed to treat patients who have the flu, and

nothing else.

I know this might sound ludicrous, but LPNs are not permitted to perform all

the duties for which they are more than competent and trained to perform. Let

there be no doubt about it; LPNs are an essential part of our nursing family and

of the health care delivery system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: They are part of a caring, supportive profession which is

guided by a code of ethics, and they are independently accountable for their

actions and their decision. They are appropriately trained and good health care

providers. This being the case, one must ask why I have to stand here today in

the House of Assembly, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to present

this resolution.

I find it incomprehensible that today, when we hear on the radio, television,

and we read it in newspapers that health care is the primarily concern of

Canadians, we also hear that there are untold stresses placed upon the health

care system and the people who work inside it. Yet, we have a group here,

sitting in the House today and working around this Province, who are asking only

to be permitted to maximize their full potential for which they are trained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: What I find even more difficult to understand is the fact that

these individuals have come to this House today to ask that they be assigned

this duty. I really can't understand it, that they have to come and ask us to

help them to do extra duties in the health care institutions in this Province.

Duties, I might add, for which they are not asking more pay, more remuneration,

duties for which they are fully trained and more than competent to carry out.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the LPNs for bringing this to our attention, for

offering of themselves a solution to some of the stresses that we find in the

system today. For it is obvious that if the LPNs are permitted to carry out more

duties, duties that they are capable of performing, then they will free up other

individuals in the system to do extra tasks.

I ask for the support of all the members in the House to ensure that LPNs

throughout the Province are permitted to perform their full scope of duties for

which they are trained. However, as I sometimes see in this House, verbal

support is not always enough. It is for this reason that I call upon the

Minister of Health and Community Services, and the health care boards in the

Province, to make this a priority issue.

Before I close, you have all found badges on your desks. I notice that some

of the members opposite are wearing them. It says: Licensed to Care. Mr.

Speaker, I call upon the support of all members in the House to see that this

resolution passes today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly support the resolution here today and am certainly a strong

believer. In fact, it was only the past week in Question Period I made a

reference to the shortage of LPNs and not a sufficient number being hired in the

system there, as the minister well knows.

I have been a strong advocate that people should be allowed to be able to

work to the capacity to which they are trained. LPNs are trained to do

medications, monitor IVs, do dressings, catheterization, and there is a whole

array of things that they are trained to do and should be permitted to do. They

can do some of these things in Lewisporte, but they can't do them in Grand

Falls-Windsor and they can't do them in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I have spoken

with LPNs over the past several months in numerous regions of the Province and

they have echoed many of these concerns.

I would certainly like to say that by taking on added responsibilities in

line with their training it allows our health care system to carry on greater

efficiencies. If we can have Licensed Practical Nurses taking on added

responsibilities that nurses were doing, or we can have nurses taking on certain

responsibilities that doctors were doing - this has been the case in practice in

many areas - that should be the appropriate thing to do, and somebody should be

allowed to perform where they are trained.

I do have an amendment to make to that, to add. I strongly believe that when

people take on new responsibilities, new training, they meet the qualifications

for reclassification. If they have extra training over and above what was

traditional with what we would call nursing assistants years ago to Licensed

Practical Nurses, and they have taken on added responsibility and added

training, they should meet the requirements for discussion under

reclassification.

That is why I move an amendment to this private member's resolution which

reads:

"AND FURTHER

BE IT RESOLVED that LPNs be reclassified and paid

appropriately in accordance with their level of training and added

responsibility."

I think we can't just say: Let them do what they are trained to do. That

should be done, that should be a given. We shouldn't even be debating that in

this House today. What we should be doing is looking at expediting the

reclassification process to reflect the extra levels of training.

We have seen it in nurses too, as an example, the same with nurses who have

taken on extra training. BNs now have added training, some specialized training.

If they are in community health they get a higher classification, and when you

carry on certain other specialized areas in critical care or whatever the case

may be. Licensed Practical Nurses are undervalued in our system today. In fact,

certain parts of the health care system now laid off Licensed Practical Nurses

because they were not considered appropriate to work in that specific unit. Yes,

emergency departments is one example. They are undervalued. Personally, they are

very valuable to our system.

On a personal basis, just over a year ago our own family hired a Licensed

Practical Nurse to care for one of the family members. We did it on a private

basis because we wanted to have somebody who had basic training levels and

skills that could provide a better level of care. It is important. It is a more

efficient level.

We have to be looking at how we can best utilize the dollars in our health

care system to deliver efficiently. They have that level of training, and if

some point in the future their training program increases in scope to take on

added training and added responsibilities, I think that is the way to go.

Because there is a shortage of doctors in the system in many areas and

responsibilities are allowed (inaudible) to do things in areas we cannot get

somebody to do it. What is the difference in telling somebody to carry out those

duties in an area we have no one else to do it in, and you go in an area and you

tell them they cannot do it in another area?

There is no consistency across the Province. We have a responsibility to

initiate standards and allow people to perform up to their training levels.

Whatever the case may be, in any particular profession, no matter how well you

are trained, there has to be certain orientation in positions that are happening

there, and a while to gather those practical skills if necessary. Because when

you have a period of time without having to, and being allowed to, do those

practical things with those skills -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I do.

When you are a while without being able to practice and carry on skills you

have a tendency to lose skills, and you need to go back to practice on those.

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board on a point of

order.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to enlighten this House and

the member opposite that the classification review that has been referred to by

the member opposite has already been undertaken and was announced February 18.

The Licensed Practical Nurses is part of the nursing study review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

just want to speak on the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very much aware of that. I'm very much aware too, minister, that on

July 17, 1998 a certain group of nurses, nursing instructors, put a request for

reclassification in to Treasury Board and it is still there in the heap almost

two years later. What I am calling for is not what is requested and what has

been done. I am calling for action, a commitment to get it done. I'm very much

aware of the process. If that is the case, the minister should very well today

stand and give full support to this because she has acknowledged it and I expect

her to do it, besides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a point of order, as Mr. Speaker indicated.

I'm not going to get excited about her comments. I am very much aware of

what she said. I thank the minister for saving me from getting overly excited on

the issue. Because I believe seriously in the issue, and at times I might get

carried away with it because I believe that it has been sitting too long without

something being done about it. It gets very frustrating in the process.

We have seen piecemeal reclassifications done with numerous health care

professionals out there when the crisis comes. When there is a crises we deal

with reclassification, but why can't we do things to prevent a crisis

occurring? Why can't we do that? The minister stood today and made reference

to inconsistency. One thing I have been on health care is consistent. I have

been consistently saying there are problems, and that the health care

professionals in our Province are undervalued and underappreciated. I have been

consistent from day one.

The inconsistency I see has been in government. They have indicated there is

no crisis. We have the best health care system in Canada. I could go back and

get the press releases out of my office saying how great it is. Finally, lo and

behold, I was delighted that the Premier agreed with me and said: Look, there is

a crisis, and we have to do something about it. After four years, gone hoarse

from singing out about it, finally they realized something needs to be done.

Basically -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am glad it is forthcoming here. We support it. My

colleagues here will support this. I am sure government, in what I heard the

President of Treasury Board say, could support this because it is initiated.

Initiating something does not give a final result. We have to get it done. Let

me refer to the question I asked. Why would a small group of nursing instructors

around the Province which applied nearly two years ago not get reclassification?

Because if it happens with one we have to do it with others. Then it sits there

for two years. How are we going to reclassify several thousands over night when

it took almost two years to do a small group?

It is in the heap, it is in the pile on the desk. That is what the saying is.

I know there is a commitment, and I acknowledge that. There is a commitment now

to get a quick result to this reclassification for nurses, for social workers

and Licensed Practical Nurses, I understand. I hope it will all be ready in the

summer, it seems to be, probably late spring or whenever. It is probably as fast

as it could be done, as expeditiously as it could be done, dealing with the

different levels and so on.

I'm certainly looking forward to this happening expeditiously. We value

them. I am delighted they have the interest and concern to be able to get out

and practice what they have been trained to do here and to come here today. I

congratulate them. We have to utilize them in the system, and I'm sure the

minister realizes we have to be cost-efficient. He certainly realizes that. We

have to make the best use of our resources. Expanded responsibilities has to be

reflected on the pay scale too, I say to the President of Treasury Board. If we

can have people at the various levels - LPNs trained to do more things, nurses

trained to do other things and so on - it leaves less at the top for doctors,

frees it up, and gets more economic use or more efficient use, we will call it,

of our resources that are in our system. That is important. That is the way we

have to go and we have to utilize people.

I am not going to belabour the point. I am not going to use all of my time. I

support the amendment there. It is seconded by the Member for Waterford Valley.

We certainly hope we can move on and get this passed, and get some quick action

here in the betterment not just of LPNs, but the betterment of health care here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise this afternoon and speak on the resolution -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, indeed I will.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to offer my support and also to speak on the

resolution put forward by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

CHAIR: If I could for a moment?

I will just rule that the amendment as presented is in order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get to that in just a moment.

I also want to say that we do support the amendment that has been put forward

by the member opposite. In doing so I want to clarify for the record - because I

don't want there to be any misconception out there in the media, in the

public, and certainly no confusion on behalf of the public - that the Licensed

Practical Nurses in our Province come to us today not because of money, not

because they feel they should be paid for extra responsibilities within the

institutions that they work, but that they came here today on principle. They

came here today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: They came here today, Mr. Speaker, to ask to be able to perform

the duties for which they have been trained, to work in the health care

institutions in this Province. I don't want that misrepresentation on behalf

of these people out there in the Province today.

What I am going to say is that since February of this year this government

has undertaken a process, a review and reclassification of people within the

health care sector, and the LPNs are one of those groups of people. We value the

contributions that they make to our institutions and to the health care

professions. When we sat down as a government to review and look at

reclassification in that system, I can tell you that the LPNs were at the top of

the list for review and consideration under this process. That is why we have no

problem whatsoever today accepting the amendment that has been put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes.

We have already started the practice and I don't want to confuse the two.

Because what we are here today to discuss is the health care and the team

approach to health care and the roles and responsibilities of the people that

are in that profession. We have to have clearly defined parameters for each

individual on that health care team. The Licensed Practical Nurses are a

valuable component of that team, and therefore, if we are going to have a

collaborative team approach to nursing and nursing care, there are certain

things that have be upheld. One of them is respect. It is respect among the team

members for the role that each sector plays in patient care. Whether you are an

LPN, a lab technician, an RN, a BN, a physician, or whatever the role is that

you play, there has to be respect. There has to be flexibility among the team

members in order for them to perform the specific functions in which they have

been trained. There has to be consistency. There has to be consistency in the

role that each health care official plays in the health care system, no matter

what group that is. That is what this is all about today. It is about allowing

Licensed Practical Nurses in our Province to perform the duties for which they

have been trained.

When I hear these stories about how LPNs in Grand Falls, Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, and St. John's, from the west end to the center and so on, how their

roles are varying in each institution, it is absolutely amazing how these people

cope within that system, when you are moving from one institution to another,

from one employment opportunity to another, being told what you can do, when you

can do it, and if you can do it in this building or in the next building.

It is unbelievable that we have processionals in our system, professionals in

this Province, whom we are today, as a government, undertaking and reviewing in

terms of reclassification, but yet they are out there and they have no

consistency in their roles, they have no set of criteria in terms of the scope

of the work in which they are permitted or allowed to practice from one

institution to another. I think that is shameful; because what we are doing is,

we are underestimating the role that these people can play in our health care

sector. We are underutilizing a professional group of people who have the

skills, the training, the competency to take on more responsibility within our

health care system and we are not allowing them to practice to their full

potential. I think that is shameful.

I think that what we are doing today - not only in calling on the various

health care groups in the health care sector, not only in calling on the

Department of Health and Community Services in asking them to do this - is the

appropriate and responsible thing. How can you sit down and deal adequately with

the problems that we have in the health care system without giving this group of

people full and adequate consideration, without allowing them to exercise their

skills and training to the maximum potential that they can, and without

including them and assessing them as a true and valuable contribution to the

health care sector of this Province?

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of stories, because I have to say that I

have been very close to a lot of LPNs who work in the institutions in our

Province, the people who every day work with the acute ill and the chronically

ill and who, to the best of their ability, keep these institutions going,

performing, and meeting the needs of patients. They have a trying job. The

duties that they carry out are trying responsibilities.

I think that is must be awfully frustrating when you work on a floor of

Hoyles-Escasoni Complex, or on the floor of any other institution - I should not

be naming institutions in this Province - but on the floor of any institution,

knowing that you are trained to treat this patient, to care for this patient in

the best possible way, and you have the skills but are not permitted to do it;

but you have to stand and wait for someone else to come in and watch them

perform that exact same duty on that patient while you sit there with the

training, with the expertise and with the skills to do it. That is shameful,

very shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I am not going to go on and say a lot more, because I think

that the resolution put forward today by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo,

in conjunction with the hon. Chair, is a good resolution. It speaks well of

where we are going in the health care sector in this Province.

I also want to certainly offer my support to the minister who has undertaken

to look at reclassification in the health care sector, to look at how we can

better utilize the team that we have in our institutions and our hospitals. I

hope that every member in this House will stand and support this resolution

today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, support the resolution and the amendment to the resolution as

proposed. I have been in contact with people in the Labrador West district over

the past number of days - the LPNs and their representatives - who called and

asked for us to support this on their behalf. We certainly have no problem and

are happy to do so.

I have two sisters who are LPNs, and I can tell you that in this Province

today LPNs - and the people who are here in the gallery today are quite aware of

this - are oftentimes confused as nurses. People in the public who have had

occasion to be in hospital, go in and see a person there who is taking care of

their needs, and to them, many times, these people are nurses.

It is important that the public is aware of the role that is played in this

Province in the health care sector by LPNs. They are an integral part of our

health care system that could not function without the jobs that they do. It is

ludicrous to think that people are trained in certain areas of their profession

but, for the sake of bureaucracy, are unable to fulfil the things they have been

trained to do. In many ways, the LPNs and the former nursing assistants are

really the backbone, front line, of our health care institutions.

I want to talk a bit, too, about the number of LPNs in the present system. I

am sure again the LPNs who are here today will certainly agree that occupation,

because of the work, because of the type of work they perform, because of the

things they are exposed to, is also a very hazardous occupation where a person

can be injured rather quickly. That is why it is important to have enough LPNs

in the system that they can provide assistance to each other when required to

move or lift patients, and the other things they do in their day-to-day jobs. I

think that has to be recognized by this government as a priority in increasing

the number of LPNs that are presently in our hospitals and institutions.

I think the current Minister of Health and Community Services stated last

year, during the debate on the nurses, that we have to utilize workers in our

health care system to a better degree than what we have been doing in the past.

It is certainly great to see, as an organization, as a group, the LPNs taking

the initiative to do what they have been trained to do, and do the full scope. I

think all of us know, from going into the hospitals and institutions in our

Province, that the number of LPNs today as compared to years ago, and the things

they do today as compared to years ago, there is a great difference.

It is great to see that - most times people have to have extra duties forced

upon them. It is not often at all that workers come forward and say: We want to

do what we have been trained to do. It is our job and we want to be able to

perform it.

In the long run, the utilization of LPNs with increased numbers up from where

they are today also provides good service to the people of this Province. It is

also cheaper in the long run to have LPNs working in the health care system to

do the type of things they are trained for but under the present system are not

permitted to do.

I also look around in the gallery and see a lot of familiar faces there that

I have met over the years at different conferences and conventions, people who

have gotten up and spoken out on behalf of LPNs, the work conditions they are

subject to, and the lack of being able to perform to the full utilization of

their skill level.

Again, I want to go back to the numbers because I think it is critical, with

expanded duties that they have been trained for, that they will be able to

perform in the future, that the number of LPNs will be increased again, because

it can be a very hazardous occupation. It is one thing when we work with human

beings. It is not the same as working with machinery where you can let it sit

there for a day if you don't get the proper help.

The LPNs who are in the workplace are looking at patients as if they are

their own family. It could be their father or mother, brother or sister, or

grandparent. They are not going to be able to, and they do not, wait until help

comes because many times, with the reduced numbers of people working, help may

not come for a long time, and the patient cannot go a long time without getting

the help that they require.

Again, I say it is important for this government not only to recognize the

expanded health care duties, but also at the same time expand the number of LPNs

who are presently working in the system.

There is no question we support this initiative, this resolution, and we

support the amendment as proposed as well, and anything that we can do to

facilitate this passing we will certainly be there to do it. I wish the LPNs

well in the future. They know that with their expanded duties that will be

coming from this resolution the health corporation boards will be informed, and

that in the future they will be able to carry out their duties that they were

trained for and that they are proud of being able to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I must say it is with great pleasure that I rise today in support of this

resolution, the author of which, of course, and there is no doubt, the Member

for Humber East, brought forth by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

Certainly it brings back a lot of memories. As you may not be aware, I started

out in life as what was then known as a nursing assistant. I often wonder now

when I see my - I should call them colleagues, actually, because I think not

many in the House can boast that they started out life as a nursing assistant

and ended up here. I recall back then, and that was some thirty years ago, that

LPNs, which they are referred to as now, who did special courses like medication

were allowed to distribute those medications. What I find unusual today is I

think they have a pilot project in Botwood somewhere, to see how practical this

is.

I think it is more of an insult, really, that these people have been trained,

have sought further training, and have demonstrated they are compassionate,

competent, caring individuals who have planned and made a career out of nursing

care. Let there be no doubt that these men and women play a very important role

in the family of health care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that these LPNs, in my view,

have a much closer relationship with their patients than anybody in the system.

Because these are the people who give the day to day care of the patients. They

are good, hard working people.

I do find it very difficult to people that the system that we have does not

allow these people to practice that which they are trained to do. It is amazing.

The Opposition House Leader talks about the crisis in the system, the great need

and the great stress that this system is under, but yet we have people in the

system who are fully trained, fully competent, and who are not permitted to

perform their duties. There is something drastically wrong, in a society where

we know there is a great need for care, that these people are not permitted to

practice.

So I have no hesitation today in urging our Minister of Health and Community

Services to talk to the boards, have them have a serious look at what they are

doing to the people who we have in the system. I will tell you, it is very

difficult to comprehend that in the system thirty years ago an LPN who had taken

the medication or pharmaceutical course, whatever you might call it, could

distribute medications unsupervised, and over thirty years later we are putting

together a pilot project to see if it works. What an insult. What an insult to

ourselves as a people. What an insult to all of us, every last Newfoundlander

and Labradorian, that we could sit idly by and allow this to happen.

These LPNs, these men and women, in their professional way, came to this

House to ask for our support. What professional people. What a symbol to the

kind of people we have in this system who are caring for our brothers, sisters,

fathers, uncles and grandparents. These people, in a meek and mild way, came

here to look for our support.

I can say very clearly today that this government that I represent and sit

with has already recognized and is already reviewing the classification of those

people.

What an insult it would be that we would ask our Minister of Health to look

into allowing those people, or asking the boards to allow those people, to

perform the duties that they have been trained to do. What an insult it would be

if they weren't allowed to do it. How detrimental it would be to the care and

comfort of people that we have in the system today that need their support. They

give it. They give it willingly because they care, they understand, and they

want to do it. They are career professionals who in my books stand very high in

the care, the understanding, the helping and the curing of people who are ill in

this Province.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand here today, as

one of them, to fully support this resolution.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to support the resolution put forward by the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo and so eloquently supported on this side of the House by

our health critic, the Member for Ferryland. Our health critic has made it quite

clear that we are in support of maximizing the talents and the abilities of all

participants in health care.

We have noted that the LPNs have found it necessary to come to this

Legislature today to have this particular motion passed. That in itself, I

think, is regrettable. Why should it be necessary for Licensed Practical Nurses

to have to come to the Legislature to have to have a private member's

resolution brought forward when, within the powers and within the mandate of the

Minister of Health and Community Services, there is the responsibility and the

power given to that particular department already to maximize all of the health

care resources we have?

Licensed Practical Nurses undergo one year of training, plus, of course, they

have a lot of experience that is gained in the performance of their duties. It

is regrettable that certain institutions across the Province are maximizing and

using the talents of these trained professionals, and other places are not using

them to the same extent.

I agree with the comments that have been made by the Member for Topsail - he

speaks with some degree of experience - but I am also saying that it is

regrettable when we have in this Province very distinct challenges in health

care. You would think that the Minister of Health and Community Services would

already have spoken with all of the health care providers, spoken with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, coordinated all of the other

delivery agencies, all of the health care boards. That is one of the

responsibilities we have with the Department of Health and Community Services,

to coordinate, to make sure that all of the talents we have are maximized to

their appropriate levels.

The Licensed Practical Nurses are not asking to be assigned responsibilities

for which they are not trained, and certainly there should be within the

Department of Health and Community Services, there should be within the health

care boards, those people who can make those divisions of responsibility, those

people who can go and say: These are the responsibilities which will be assigned

to Licensed Practical Nurses.

The fact that these individuals find it necessary to come here at all today,

this should have happened a long time ago, this is something that should have

been maximized a long time ago. We should have straightened it out, if it was

necessary to be straightened out, at the various local delivery places; whether

it is in the direct hospitals or whether it is the home care system. Wherever it

is - in our seniors homes - wherever these Licensed Practical Nurses happen to

be working, someone should have precisely designated those responsibilities.

It is certainly within the responsibility of the Minister of Health. It is

somewhat, I would say, a reflection on the government that a private member in

the back benches has to rise in his place today, move a private member's

resolution to remind the minister to get on with the job. That, I think, is

regrettable; however, as for the amendment saying that we need to reclassify

Licensed Practical Nurses to make their pay levels consistent with their

responsibility and their training, we fully, on this side, agree with. We agree

with the resolution. We just say that it is regrettable they had to do this

today to get the attention of the minister. Therefore, we call upon the minister

to do immediately that which he should have done a long time ago and make sure

that the Licensed Practical Nurses in this Province are utilized to their

maximum advantage. We support the resolution, have no hesitancy in doing it, but

we do it in saying that it is overdue and it should have been done a long time

ago.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to this private member's

motion. Before doing so, for their own sakes, I will resist saying any hello to

the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, to his good friend, Mr. LeDrew. I always

pretend I don't know him because if I suggest that I know Clayton, my brother

Ross might think he is a Liberal or something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I wouldn't want to cause you that embarrassment, Clayton,

so we'll make sure that is clear. You can go around and other people will

think you're a good NDP'er, like all the union people are supposed to be.

In any event, I cannot resist the opportunity to say hello to my

sister-in-law, Nellie, who happens to be in the gallery with the group.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I pass along my greetings, Nellie, to the rest of the family

members because you will probably be back home to Central Newfoundland quicker

than I will. Let them know today that I was really taken aback because they were

making fun of me today suggesting I was dressed like Regis Philbin. Whenever

they do those kinds of things I get very upset and it throws me off, so I'm

not sure I will be able to participate in the debate as I normally might.

In any event, the other thing, too, I was proud to be reminded that I should

wear the button today. I did meet some people yesterday who told me there was

going to be a button today. I think they made a slight mistake. They said it was

going to say: Licensed to Kill. I said: Licensed to Kill? Then they reminded me:

No, that was one John Efford had out for the seal hunt. The one we have today,

of course, is Licensed to Care, for the Licensed Practical Nurses that we're

all proud to support.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition health critic, the Member for Ferryland, did

mention in his commentary in support of this, in presenting an amendment that we

also support, that he had raised this issue before. I give him credit; he had

done that repeatedly in support of the notion that Licensed Practical Nurses

should be able to do their full scope of duties.

I think again the record should show that when he resists the urge to play

politics with the issue, he is very, very good, because he is very committed to

health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. The problem that I have, that I was

pointing out in Question Period, is that occasionally when he wants to suggest

that this government is no good, just as the Member for Waterford Valley strayed

into politics then for a few minutes -

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the minister (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Just the minister. I acknowledge that the minister is no

good. I certainly take that.

For the record again, as I said last week, because I am so concerned about

health care in the Province, as I know he is, the offer still stands. If he will

leave those benches on that side of the House and come to this side - I do not

know if the Premier will agree with it - I will recommend to the Premier that he

stand right here, that the Member for Ferryland be immediately made the Minister

of Health and Community Services, if he wants to come over here and do the job,

because I really believe his best interest is in this job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Fisheries didn't want this new job as the

Minister of Health and the Minister of Health didn't want it either, so he was

the last one that the Premier could talk into taking it. That is factual, I

understand.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are trying to interrupt me and throw me off to make sure that - I will

not continue on with the point I was making.

The unfortunate

part is that occasionally, because issues like the

reclassification amendment to this particular motion for Licensed Practical

Nurses, many of those things, along with other issues that were raised today,

like we should have more MRI services, more home support and home care, all of

those things that, as a matter of principle, we do not disagree on, it always

comes done then to how much to any of those services at any time can you afford

within the fiscal framework of the Province. We always talk about making health

care our number one priority. It is, by virtue of the very fact that forty-two

cents of every single dollar spent by this government for program spending is

spent on health care - the highest ratio in the country. Those kinds of issues

are there.

It gets complicated, though, when we do have occasionally, in a flight of

rhetoric because he wants to try to discredit the government, the same critic

because they say: Your own Opposition health critic is back home in Newfoundland

saying you are already wasting $100 million that we are giving to you, so why

would we give you more money? I know every single day he wants us to spend more

money on good causes and good initiatives.

I would only hope that at some point he would resist the temptation to try to

politically discredit the government, stick to the health care issues, encourage

us to spend the money, like he should, on the services, and encourage the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - to give us the money, which they should. It is hard to

convince them when they turn around and say: Go home out of it, Roger; your own

critic is down there saying you are wasting the money. You have lots of money,

you are just wasting it.

We have to get the message a little more consistent.

The Member for Waterford Valley couldn't resist saying that a private

member had to come in and remind his own minister to take action with respect to

this initiative. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to you what has been happening.

There is a Human Resource Committee working within the Department of Health and

Community Services, with the health care boards and with the group. It has been

going on for a few months. They have not concluded their work yet, but they are

dealing with the issues of scope of practice. They are dealing with the issues

of scope of practice for the professionals in nursing, which are the Licensed

Practical Nurses, the nurses and our new group of nurse practitioners. They are

also dealing with the issue of scope of practice as it results and has an impact

on the physicians. If we can move through the system and have the licensed - the

concept and idea is this: Let's utilize the Licensed Practical Nurses to their

maximum training and ability. That will free up the nurses to do some things

that they are currently complaining - maybe about being overworked and used

improperly. They can do things that maybe only nurses should be doing, instead

of things that other trained professionals can do. The nurse practitioners can

perform many tests and procedures that up to today - and there is always a

conflict - can only be done by a practicing physician. The physicians

acknowledged that the nurse practitioners can do it just as well, but one of the

conflicts in it is that the physicians, particularly those who are not on

salary, have to see a certain number of patients anyway on fee-for-service. If

they let a nurse practitioner see the patient they lose money. Their salary,

their actual fee for the year, actually goes down.

In many parts of rural Newfoundland we have salaried physicians, or a

combination of salary and fee-for-service, that allows that issue to be dealt

with. We are going through projects now in Clarenville on a pilot basis that is

about to be voted on by the physicians, in Port aux Basques, in Twillingate and

also in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where we are trying to combine teaching

abilities from the current staff, maximized use of staff in the facilities, and

we are asking them to bring consistency to the issue of scope of practice.

We have indicated to them that we would rather not legislate it or order it.

We would rather for the system and the day to day managers in the system to sort

amongst themselves who should be doing what so that we maximize everybody's

capabilities within the system for the benefit of the patient.

The only thing I have ever said as the Minister of Health and Community

Services is that I am not a health care professional. I admit openly to knowing

very little of the details of what health care professionals do. However, the

one question I repeatedly ask everybody, and it fits directly and totally into

this debate, is: Are we doing things in each and every case that are in the best

interest of the patient or the user in the system, instead of fitting somebody

else's agenda? That is the only question. The agenda and the patient here

would both be best served if we maximized the scope of practice. I don't think

there is any question on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That is why I expect the motion will be passed unanimously.

It will be helpful that we can take that kind of a motion to our Human Resource

Committee that is looking at these issues.

I mentioned to the media outside - I had to step out for a minute to do a

couple of interviews on this issue, and some others that might be in the news

today - that the whole issue again is that we would hope we would get agreement

with that. This will help focus it. The group can do its work. We mightn't

have to order it at all. It might become a rationalized and rational part of the

system. It will be to the benefit of patients, it will be to the benefit of the

system generally. We hope it can happen. The classification review exercise is

already being commenced.

When we had the issue with a classification exercise for nurses, we indicated

no, not just nurses. We wanted to do the whole range of the nursing profession

which had to include the Licensed Practical Nurses, because you could not look

at one in isolation from the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We think the issue is coming to a head. They are concerned.

The last point I was making, and I made it to the media, is that one of the

concerns right now that is slowing down the work of the Committee is that when

you transfer some duties from one group who have traditionally been doing the

duties to another group, with it, because of the environment today, more so than

ten or fifteen years ago, comes the issue of responsibility and potential

liability.

One of the things that unfortunately is happening in Canada and in

Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, and

the idea of individual choice in Canada versus the collective choice that

preceded the situation in 1981, is that we have more of a tendency to be like

the United States in terms of suing somebody if something goes wrong. We have

even had lawsuits in our publicly funded health care system. Because of that,

the physicians are particularly sensitive about ceding some duties and

responsibility to the nurse practitioners, because a nurse practitioner might be

able to do it. If somebody in a community said: That was always done by a doctor

before and now it is done by a nurse practitioner, and something goes wrong and

somebody decides to sue somebody - which is the worst outcome - the question

they are trying to answer in the Committee, which is slowing down and

complicating the work, is: Who is responsible? Who is going to answer the

question at the end of the day if there is a lawsuit?

It is a related issue. Here is the same thing. In many areas, because of the

fact that we have now advanced and improved training for Licensed Practical

Nurses beyond where they were, they can without a doubt perform additional

duties, but in the mindset of many of the patient users these are duties that in

many areas of the Province were traditionally always performed by nurses. If

there is a question, if there is a problem, if there is a complication of some

sort and if there is a lawsuit, the Committee seems to be stuck on the idea: Who

do you sue? I'm saying that we would hope that nobody would sue anybody, that

everyone would understand that every single professional in the health care

system did the very best they could to assist, aid and help the patient. Because

we have a very litigious type of mindset creeping into our society, which was an

American view not a Canadian view - but it is coming here - that is what is

slowing down the work of the Committee more than anything else.

If they manage to deal with those issues I think the rest of the idea of

moving along and the idea of expanding the maximum scope of practice will

probably go a little faster rather than slower. It is not a matter of a private

member's motion needing to be brought to the Legislature. The hon. member is

trying to play some politics again to suggest that the government was tardy or

the government wasn't dealing with the issue. The government has been dealing

actively with this issue. There are serious other issues related to it. We hope

to get them all resolved.

I encourage everyone to support the motion, support the amendment. We can

take that information that there is no difference of opinion here, that all of

the political parties encourage everybody in the system - the Department of

Health, the health boards themselves, the managers in the system, the unions

that speak on behalf of the groups that are involved - to get their act together

as quickly as they can, sort out the issues, including the legal ones, and make

this happen.

I would encourage a strong endorsement of this resolution today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Humber East who put a fair

amount of work in on this resolution today and was going to present it, but

unfortunately he couldn't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: We've talked about it a number of times over the past few

months and again I would like to thank him. I would also like to thank the

members of the House for what appears to be your unanimous support for this

resolution. Most of all, I would like thank the Licensed Practical Nurses in the

gallery, and those across the Province, for bringing this issue to us today in

the House of Assembly. It is not very often that any employees, as a group,

comes forward and asks to be allowed to perform more duties and not mention a

pay increase. For that you should be commended, and I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: While I agree with the Member for Ferryland in his amendment

that he put forward, I hope it doesn't cloud the issue. What I mean by that is

I hope that people outside this House don't think that the LPNs came forward

asking for extra duties simply to get extra pay. I hope that people don't get

the impression that they are trying to get through the backdoor what they couldn't

get through the front because that certainly isn't the case.

I have had discussions with representatives from the LPN association here

yesterday and I have had discussions for a year with some of the individuals who

are now in the gallery. I have to honestly say that not once was a pay increase

ever mentioned to me. In fact, pay was never mentioned at all. So I would like

to thank them for that.

All the LPNs in the Province are looking for is the opportunity to work to

their full potential to help the sick and the chronically ill in this Province.

I am glad that they brought this concern to us here today. I reiterate what I

said earlier and call upon the minister and the health care boards to ensure

that this wish is carried out.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

First of all, we have an amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay.'

Carried.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay.'

I declare the resolution as amended carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think we would want the records of the House to

show that indeed the resolution as put forward by the Member for Twillingate

& Fogo was carried unanimously.

Before we adjourn, I would like to point out to hon. members that tomorrow we

will be going back to the Budget Speech. I think the Member for Cape St. Francis

was the member who adjourned the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let me to say to the hon. gentleman, as I have said to him

before, the Member for Cape St. Francis is not my favorite entertainer but after

having put up with the Member for Waterford Valley for the past two years it is

very light.

Mr. Speaker, I think you move that the House adjourn.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not nice.

MR. TULK: I do not mean it to be nice.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Private Members' Day, and having concluded our

business, this House now stands adjourns until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.