November 27, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the recent designation

of four new heritage structures by the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

In keeping with its mandate of stimulating an understanding of, and an

appreciation for, the architectural heritage of this Province, the Foundation

has designated the Rose Blanche Museum, the Rose Blanche Lighthouse, the Harding

House in Greenspond, 67 Central Street in Corner Brook and the Stoodley Fishing

Stage in Grand Bank as heritage structures.

While all of these structures have their own distinctive characteristics, it

is the house at 67 Central Street in Corner Brook to which I wish to draw

members' particular attention. 67 Central Street, which until quite recently

was owned and occupied by Mr. Jack Penney, is an exceptionally well-preserved

example of architect Andrew Cobb's Type 4 house that he designed for the

Newfoundland Power and Paper Company as dwellings for the employees of the Pulp

and Paper Mill in Corner Brook. Built in 1925, this home is noteworthy for its

high level of interior and exterior preservation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in commending the Heritage

Foundation and its many volunteers around this Province on the work they do in

preserving our heritage structures.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, a serious point of

order. I have a copy here for you regarding a disturbing series of events that

transpired in the House of Assembly yesterday, as confirmed by Hansard. I felt

it was important to review Hansard last night in detail before raising this

point of order, and I had the opportunity to do so last night.

I would like to put it in context first of all. The context for this point of

order is a ruling that Your Honour made at the start of the sitting day on

Monday with respect to unparliamentary language. It was a detailed and very

significant ruling, in our view, which Your Honour made only after taking the

matter in question under advisement and deliberating over a period of five days.

In making that ruling Your Honour made the following statements, "Before

getting into the details of the point of order, the Chair would like to remind

all hon. members of the importance of conducting the proceedings in this or any

other Parliament in such a way as to respect the integrity of all members.

Without such respect, the proceedings descend into disorder and the work of the

House becomes secondary to wrangling and disputes."

Your Honour then quoted Marleau and Montpetit on page 525, which states,

"...the use of offensive, (or) provocative... language in the House is

strictly forbidden." "Personal attacks, insults... are not in

order."

Your Honour stated, "While the acceptability of language depends on the

context, there are certain prohibitions which are fairly well established. These

can be found on 481 of Beauchesne 's 6 th Edition ".

Your Honour quoted the following paragraphs of that

section of Beauchesne ,

"A member must not, (

e) impute bad motives or motives different from

those acknowledged by a Member or (

f) make a personal charge against a Member.'"

Your Honour then stated, "It has been consistently ruled in the House

that language must be temperate. I think this is the key to the whole

matter." Your Honour continued, "...it is perhaps a good opportunity

to remind all members of the necessity of keeping their language temperate and

of respecting the integrity of one's colleagues and the dignity of the

House."

In conclusion, Your Honour ruled that the remark in question "...is in

the category of imputing bad motives and, when applied to an individual, is

unacceptable and tends to cause disorder." In making this ruling Your

Honour has set an important and far-reaching precedent for this House, that

whenever a member uses language in this House that falls into the category of

imputing bad motives to an individual then: One, disorder results. Two, the

Standing Orders of this House are therefore breached. Three, the statement is

therefore unparliamentary, and four, the statement must therefore be withdrawn.

Even if a member believes that he or she has the proof to establish that the

motives of another member are dishonourable it is absolutely unparliamentary in

this Chamber to impute bad motives to another member. It is a breach of the

rules of this House and it must be withdrawn.

With this decisive ruling on Monday, Your Honour has set a standard against

which behaviour in this House is to be measured. Behaviour that fails to measure

up to the standard is contrary to the rules of this House and out of order.

Moreover, the ruling indicates that the standard must be applied vigorously

because without such rules of conduct the proceedings would descend into

disorder and the work of the House would become secondary to wrangling and

disputes.

Now that I have established the context for this point of order I will

present the facts of an event that occurred yesterday; indeed, the very next day

after Your Honour made this ruling, an event so flagrant in its violation of

this ruling that I firmly believe it constitutes a direct challenge to Your

Honour's authority in this House.

One member of this House clearly and unequivocally imputed bad motives to

another member of the House, not once but three times. The member's actions

clearly resulted in disorder, clearly breached the rules of this House, and

clearly fell far short of the standard that Your Honour has set for acceptable

conduct in this Parliament.

The events to which I refer are these: Under questioning by the Leader of the

Opposition yesterday, the Premier made the following three statements regarding

the Opposition Leader and the now former Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. I will quote these statements for the record.

Statement number one, and I quote directly, "The Leader of the

Opposition has acknowledged, I think, publicly in the Province, that he has

compromised the former Chair of the board of Hydro by speaking to him..." -

and these are the key words - "...through all of last week, while he was

still Chair of the board, and, in fact, that is okay according to the Leader of

the Opposition...".

Statement number two, directly from Hansard, "The standard that the

Leader of the Opposition uses is that he sees nothing wrong with putting the

Chair of a Crown corporation, a major business, in jeopardy and in possible

breach of trust, by conferring with him and talking with him. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the public record says - and the Leader of the Opposition bragged about

it - that..." - again the important words - "...he spoke with the

Chair of the board throughout last week. It is verbatim, Mr. Speaker, it is a

quote."

Statement number three, "The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that

publicly, now tries to deny it in the House of Assembly, and has been conferring

with the Chair for over a week, Mr. Speaker, and he sees nothing wrong with

it."

Your Honour, these statements taken together are scurrilous. Firstly, the

Premier's remarks assert, as if it were a fact, that the Leader of the

Opposition conferred continually over a period of the week with the Chair of

Hydro when in fact that was not the case.

Secondly, the Premier's remarks assert, as if it were a fact, that the

Leader of the Opposition was doing something that he knew, knowingly that he

knew, would compromise the Chair, place the Chair in jeopardy, and possibly

create a breach of trust when in fact that was not the case.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Premier's remarks assert, as if it were

a fact, that the Leader of the Opposition was motivated by a belief that it is

not wrong to take actions that compromise individuals, jeopardize individuals,

and create breaches of public trust.

So scurrilous, Mr. Speaker, is the third allegation that I am obliged to

address the gross factual error on which it is based, and I will conclude

shortly. Did the Leader of the Opposition, in fact, acknowledge on the public

record or anywhere else, for that matter, that he had been conferring

continually, over the period of the week, with the Chair of Hydro as the Premier

had asserted? No, he did not. He made no such statement. There was, at the time,

only one statement, Your Honour, on the public record regarding any discussion

between the Opposition Leader and the Hydro Chair, and as the news media have

demonstrated, that statement was not at all as the Premier had characterized it.

It was not a statement on the record of the House because it was not made in the

House. It was a statement that was made in an interview just outside the House,

a statement that was captured on tape and broadcast on the CBC Radio Morning

Show yesterday.

Now, let me quote for members, the statement the Leader of the Opposition

actually made during the interview, for the record: Mr. MacDonald indicated to

me, I guess, well over a week ago, that he had concerns with the project. As

well, Mr. MacDonald and I spoke late this week and, in fact, last night, and he

had indicated to me that he was tendering his resignation.

The quote, Mr. Speaker, refers exactly to two conversations. The first, a

week prior to Monday when the interview was recorded, and the second on Sunday

evening when the Chair indicated he was about to tender his resignation.

In the same broadcast, Mr. Speaker, was the following statement by the CBC

reporter who conducted the interview. Characterizing his understanding of the

Opposition Leader's comments, the reporter said, and I quote: Now, Williams,

the Leader of the Opposition, says that was the extent of his conversations with

MacDonald on this. He said he never pressed him for specifics because he did not

want to put the Chairman of Hydro, or the then Chairman of Hydro, in a comprised

position.

The Premier stated outside this House, Mr. Speaker, and it was quoted in the

media yesterday, that his only knowledge of any such discussion between the

Leader of the Opposition and the former Chair of Hydro was what he learned from

the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. It is strange, then, that the

Premier's characterization of those remarks is so conspicuously different from

what the Leader of the Opposition actually said and is reported to have said.

Because the Premier did not establish a solid foundation of fact, all of his

allegations about the Leader of the Opposition are shown to be utterly and

completely without any justification.

Breach of order - but that does not put an end to the matter, Mr. Speaker,

because this point of order is not merely a dispute among members about the

facts of the matter. The point of order is about the imputing of dishonourable

motives to a member in this House.

Let me repeat the significant part of the Premier's second statement. I am

quoting, Mr. Speaker. "The standard that the Leader of the Opposition uses

is that he sees nothing wrong with putting the Chair of a Crown corporation, a

major business, in jeopardy and in possible breach of trust, by conferring with

him and talking with him."

Mr. Speaker, we have now established that the Leader of the Opposition, in

fact, did not place the Chair of Hydro in jeopardy of breach of trust, but the

Premier did not simply say the Opposition Leader jeopardized the Chair; the

Premier said the Opposition Leader sees nothing wrong with putting the Chair in

jeopardy. That, Mr. Speaker, is not a statement of fact. That is a statement

about motive and intent; the most despicable, dishonourable motives that could

be ascribed to any member in this House.

How dare one member say that another member is acting in wilful contempt for

the welfare of others, in wilful contempt for the integrity of the offices of

the Crown, and in wilful contempt for the law of the land?

The Premier could hardly have been more blunt if he called the Leader of the

Opposition a degenerate thug. It is one of the most scurrilous, shocking and

indefensible tirades I have ever heard levelled by one member against another.

Mr. Speaker, I am just about to conclude.

I remind hon. members that Marleau and Montpetit, on pages 431 and 432,

states that replies to Oral Questions to be phrased in language that does not

provoke disorder in this House.

Let me repeat. It says, the use of offensive or provocative language is

forbidden, personal attacks and insults are not in order.

Let me repeat Beauchesne , 481.(e): A member must not "...impute

bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member." Or

481.(f) "...make a personal charge against a Member."

Let me quote again from Your Honour's ruling on Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to conclude quickly.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just about to conclude.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me quote again from Your Honour's ruling on Monday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me quote again from Your Honour's ruling on Monday.

"It has been consistently ruled in the House that language must be

temperate. I think this is the key to the whole matter.

"...it is perhaps a good opportunity to remind all members of the

necessity of keeping their language temperate and of respecting the integrity of

one's colleagues and the dignity of the House."

I do not expect, Your Honour - I am just about to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to quickly conclude.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just about finished, Mr. Speaker, just another

paragraph.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I may? Thank you.

I do not expect Your Honour to rule on the Premier's stunning

misrepresentation of the facts of the Opposition Leader's remarks in the

media. The issue of imputing dishonourable motives is another matter entirely,

and one that our caucus views with serious concern.

Given the seriousness with which we take this matter, I am today tabling my

Point of Order along with the copies of the documents I have cited.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the last point that the hon. member raised, the member has neither the

right nor the obligation to table documents in the House. I think that has been

ruled on a number of occasions.

The other point that the Chair made, in ruling on Monday, was that points of

order ought to be raised immediately or, in the case of Question Period,

immediately after Question Period. I said at that time that I would not be

considering points of order that were not brought up in a timely fashion. The

Chair is going to stick with that, because points of order ought to be raised

when the thing occurs, and members ought to do that.

I did say that I took the point that the hon. Government House Leader did

raise under advisement and for that reason I had to rule, but I said that points

of order that were raised, not in a timely fashion, would not be considered.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible) going to question the Speaker?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not going to question the Speaker. All of our

questions are saved for you, Mr. Wiseman, and others like you on the opposite

side, in your capacity as ministers of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, what we attempted -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

What I attempted to do today: We raised a point of order according to your

ruling, I believe, and this is for your consideration, and I put it before you

for that reason. We raised this point of order immediately yesterday, and I

wanted to take the opportunity to elaborate on it today. That is all that we

did, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The point of order that the hon. member raised yesterday, the Chair has under

advisement and will rule on it.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the City of Mount Pearl

for having been recognized in an awards ceremony on October 30 as one of Canada's

most friendly communities for home-based business.

Over the years, the Mount Pearl City Council has taken various initiatives to

encourage all types of business and, in the case of home-based businesses, the

council has changed zoning regulations to ease the process and has offered

creative support that coaches grassroots entrepreneurs through many of the most

challenging aspects of getting a small business off the ground.

In 2001, the city dedicated its annual high-end, full-colour magazine

entitled Business Success to raising awareness of the home-based business

sector, including the profiling of more than twenty successful home-based

businesses located in Mount Pearl.

Thirteen per cent of all business ventures in Mount Pearl are home-based, Mr.

Speaker. In real numbers, that translates to 121 home-based businesses operating

in the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are extended to Mayor David Denine, the City

Council and the Economic Development Officer, Mrs. Bronda Aylward and her staff

on receiving this national award. I am sure that all members of the House will

want to wish all the home-based businesses located in Mount Pearl continued

success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over this past weekend, the Newfoundland and Labrador Economic

Developers Association held its inaugural conference in Gander.

This conference was organized by economic development practitioners who feel

it is necessary to have an organization to encourage professional development

and networking amongst those in the profession.

The executive of the national organization of economic developers also met in

Gander over the weekend and attended the first provincial conference to act as

resource people for the local organizations. It is also worthy of note that the

National Economic Developers Association will hold its national conference in

St. John's in October, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in wishing this new

professional association every success in the very important work they do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the contribution that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make to service organizations in general and to

the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada in particular. The Kinsmen and Kinette

Clubs of Canada is the largest Canadian only service organization with almost

10,000 members in 640 clubs nationwide.

Each year at their national convention, they elect the current year national

team and that consists of a national Kinsmen and Kinette president and one each

of a national Kinsmen and Kinette director.

What is of particular significance is that for the past five years the

position of national Kinsmen director has been held by a Newfoundlander,

starting with Neville Greeley of the Kinsmen Club of Corner Brook, followed by

Shawn Woodford of the Kinsmen Club of Lewisporte.

What is even more remarkable is that for the past three years, this national

position has been held by a member from the same club, that being the Kinsmen

Club of St. John's. Those who held that office are: Peter Noel, Gary Carville,

and the most recent being elected just this past summer, Harold Sullivan.

An interesting addition to this story of service by residents of our Province

is that next year the position of national Kinette director will also be held by

a Life Member and current national vice-director, Marilyn Foote of the Kinette

Club of Conception Bay South.

The leadership shown by the people from this Province in this National

Service Organization is indeed a shining example that demonstrates once again

the spirit of giving that is a hallmark of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It

is what separates us and what makes us special.

I ask the members of this hon. House to show appreciation to the residents of

our Province for their spirit of giving and for making us proud.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell

Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to recognize a Newfoundlander today, that person being Roger

Jamieson. Roger is this Province's first private sector representative on the

Canadian Tourism Commission Board of Directors. He was appointed by federal

Minister Allan Rock on October 4, on the recommendation of Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Roger is owner and operator of Kilmory Resort in Swift Current and, because

of his experience with the industry, he possesses extensive knowledge of tourism

in this Province and throughout Canada. Roger is the immediate past-president of

Hospitality Newfoundland and the past co-chair of the Atlantic Canada Tourism

Partnership, giving him the provincial and national experience needed to be

successful as the private sector representative for Newfoundland and Labrador

and for Nova Scotia.

The appointment of Roger will bring the private sector concerns to the table

so that there is a stronger small business enterprise focus. Currently, many of

the programs offered by the Canadian Tourism Commission are specifically

designed for larger corporations within the industry and do not meet the needs

of the small sector; for example, in this Province or in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first private sector appointment from

Newfoundland and Labrador to the Canadian Tourism Commission, I feel it is

important to recognize Roger Jamieson, and I ask all members to join with me in

congratulating him on this prestigious appointment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Mr. Speaker,

would the Minister of Mines and Energy confirm, for this House, that he is

familiar with all the terms and details of the proposed deal with Hydro Quebec,

that he has seen all the documentation provided to the Board of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and that he supports all the terms of the deal and that

documentation in its entirety?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is appropriate at this time to probably put this whole discussion,

line of questioning, et cetera, for the past week-and-a-half, into some

perspective for the people of the Province, less they misunderstand where we are

today as a Province. We are, as a government, and have been for some time now,

attempting to structure a proposition that would allow us to move the

development of the Gull Island project forward. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that after all of the work and effort we put into it, all of the good

work that our officials have put into it, and all of the advice we have taken,

all of the considerations given by others to this project, we still today do not

have, to conclusion, a deal to move the Lower Churchill development forward. At

what point, Mr. Speaker, we get to that circumstance, obviously as we did with

the Voisey's Bay deal, we would be happy to provide - we will have an

obligation and we will be pleased to provide - the detail in its totality, to

the extent that it is developed, to the people of the Province.

With respect to the direct question, because that was just for a bit of

context, the direct question: have I seen, am I privy to the various documents

that have been developed, the various agreements that have been at some level of

conclusion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The answer is obviously yes, I have seen all of these

documents. I have gone over them. I have poured over them. I have had access to

them and I have read them on many occasions. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that we have not yet brought any of those documents to conclusion.

Therefore, there is nothing that I have further to add to the question other

than to say that I have seen them and I guess I will continue to see them as

long as we are involved in this process of, hopefully, trying to get a deal

done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the Province has said that

talks with Quebec to develop the $4 billion Gull Island project are virtually

complete. The documentation which I referred to was put before the board of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for their approval. We would assume that the

negotiations were complete. I ask you a simple question with a simple yes or no.

Have you seen all the documentation that was provided to Hydro? Do you know the

details, and are you in favour of everything in that documentation in its

entirety or not? Very simple, minister, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is also important in the context of recent developments,

particularly at the Hydro board level, to inform the public what it is, in fact,

the board of Hydro did consider and what, in fact, they were required to pass

judgement on. It was not the full scope and extent of the project as reflected

in a bunch of documents. What it was, was to consider three resolutions. The

board of Hydro has a responsibility, a judiciary responsibility, to that

corporation. They have a responsibility to act in the best interest of that

corporation, and by extension, act in the best interest of the ratepayers of the

Province who make up the reason why the corporation exists.

The corporation's board was asked to consider or, in fact, did consider,

and did vote on three specific resolutions. They were resolutions that did not,

in totality, deal with whether or not the deal itself was a great deal or a good

deal, or a bad deal. While some may have given some consideration to that, they

voted on three specific resolutions. I can outline for the people in the House

specifically what, in substance, those resolutions were all about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - if the hon. member wants that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister please tell us what those resolutions were all about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the resolutions were to deal with the issue of

whether or not we would, in effect, set up another Crown corporation to be the

owner and developer of the project; whether or not we would appoint certain

people to be the directors of that corporation, and whether or not, in the event

that the deal went ahead, in any event and in any circumstance what happened

through the development or through the process of managing the project, whether

or not the corporation would be injuriously affected if something did go wrong.

These were the only three resolutions that the corporation reflected on. These

were the resolutions that they considered. These were the resolutions that the

board of directors in significant majority agreed to be able to support in the

context of their deliberations. Obviously, the board of directors had available

to them other information that they gave consideration to, but at the end of the

day, they were not voting on the entire project as to whether or not, as

government, we will vote in this Legislature. They were voting on matters that

were specific to their fiduciary responsibilities as directors of that

corporation and in the interests of protecting and ensuring that that

corporation's financial integrity was always kept whole in the event of any

eventuality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, they were in fact voting on resolutions that affected the

financial integrity of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I ask the minister: Did they consider all the detailed documentation related

to the agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Hydro

Quebec? Did they have all that information before them? Was that used to reach

their decision?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Board of Directors at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were provided with

sufficient information that they needed in order to deal with the business that

they were required to deal with. I have not seen yet, the copy of the minutes of

the corporation. As a shareholder we will be entitled to see them. I anticipate

I will see them once they are prepared and finalized.

I did not sit in at the board meetings, therefore I cannot answer the

question: What, in fact, in full detail did they consider? I can say this

though, in a general sense, that they considered all of the information that was

put before them and they were provided with, as best I can judge, all of the

information that they thought was necessary for them to have to render a

decision on the piece of business that they were asked to deal with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: As a result of the

information that was provided to them - I do not know if you are giving me the

impression that it was complete or was not complete - were the officers or any

of the officials of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro required to sign any

documentation in order to approve this deal for the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: There was certain documents that the board of Hydro would

the event that we moved to do a project in substantially the same structural

manner corporate wise that we had done other deals, such as the Upper Churchill.

The fact of the matter is, the Upper Churchill is being managed by a corporation

that is a subsidiary of Hydro. There is always a potential to do a Lower

Churchill in similar fashion. However, I would hasten to add that there is

always the option of doing it in some other format or in some other fashion,

directly or indirectly, through government or a Crown corporation that is owned

solely by government. So, the issue of whether or not they are required to sign

anything is predicated upon the question of whether or not we would go in a

certain direction that would necessitate them to sign anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, in fact, their approval was required in order to sign off on

this deal in order for the government to proceed, similar to the Upper Churchill

deal, as the hon. minister has said.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has repeatedly stated that seven out of ten members

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's Board of Director voted in favour of the

deal to develop the Lower Churchill. Does the Minister of Mines and Energy feel

that it is appropriate that his Deputy Minister, Mr. Brian Maynard, who is a

civil servant and one of the negotiators for the deal, should have the right to

vote for this deal on the Board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The simple answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is obviously yes, because he

is a member of the Board of Directors and duly appointed by government to sit on

the board. That is not unusual, for public servants to be sitting on boards.

They sit on all kinds of boards as a part of government's responsibility to

ensure that they have a presence there, but to give further comfort to the

Leader of the Opposition, I would say this to him: that the former Chair of the

Board of Hydro explained - and I was happy to hear him say - he said that we, as

a board, were given the opportunity to do full due diligence in the matters of

business we had to consider, and he said we, as a board, did full due diligence

to the matters that were before us. He indicated that he was quite happy with

the process, the length of time he was given as a board chair -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - to deal with his board on the issues, and if there was

any suggestion that, in terms of whether or not it was right and proper for Mr.

Maynard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - my deputy, to sit on the board, I am sure that the board

itself would have considered that question and come to a decision one way or the

other. The fact that he was there and voted indicates the board and board chair

were (inaudible).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand Mr. MacDonald to say that the due diligence

was completed and, as a result of that due diligence, he voted against that

particular resolution, as you are saying.

As well, I understand the minister to say that he sees nothing wrong with the

chief negotiator for the Province voting on the deal at Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, and that is correct as well. That is what I understood you just

to say.

Mr. Speaker, in his Ministerial Statement this week, the minister said,

"I have asked the President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

Bill Wells, to report directly to government on the deliberations of the board,

including any concerns regarding the proposed Gull Island development." He

want on to say, "Government is most interested in hearing the specific

issues and the facts surrounding them. More importantly, we want to give them

full consideration and evaluation."

Mr. Speaker, since the minister has obviously heard from two of the

government directors who voted for the deal, Mr. Maynard and Mr. Wells, could he

advise the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if he has even bothered to seek

details of their concerns directly from Mr. Dean MacDonald, Mr. Mark Dobbin and

Mr. Bill Kelly, who opposed this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not to be picky or to be splitting hairs, I would say to the hon. Opposition

Leader, my deputy minister is not the chief negotiator in this, inasmuch as we

have a dedicated team doing that at the Hydro organizational level. I would not

want to have that out on the public record, that in fact he is the chief

negotiator; however, he is involved in the negotiations. You are correct to that

extent.

Mr. Speaker, in the statement that I gave to the House on Monday, I did say

that I, along with the Premier, obviously, and appropriate ministers, would be

seeking an early briefing with Mr. Wells with respect to getting a general

overview of the meetings that were held last week. In fact, we had that

opportunity within the last twenty-four hours. It was a preliminary meeting in

terms of the information that he was able to share.

I indicated already in an earlier question that I have not yet seen the

minutes of the board meeting. They are in the process of being prepared, and

other information that we would like to have for our review is also pending.

Obviously, I have not had a chance, nor even had the opportunity in any way, to

even think about whether or not it would be appropriate, or even inquire whether

or not Mr. MacDonald would be interested in sharing with us, in the event that

we wanted to do that. I acknowledge to the hon. leader, it is an option.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We could obviously speak to Mr. MacDonald if we decided it

would be in our interest, because I can tell him and I can tell the people of

the Province that we are fully intent not on doing a deal at any cost, but we

are intent on only doing a deal if it is the right deal that has the right level

of benefits for the people of the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and that it will attract and sustain the same level of

support that we have seen in other projects we have recently dealt with, such as

the White Rose project and the Voisey's Bay project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have had serious, very serious, concerns

expressed by the former Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We have

another leading business person in this Province who has voted against this

deal, and we have a nominee from Labrador, Mr. Bill Kelly, who has voted against

this deal. Is the minister now saying - and I would ask the minister - that it

is merely an option that you may talk to these people about these concerns? So,

in other words, you may not, and you may proceed with a deal in the absence of

that very valuable information? Is that what you just said to us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated two days ago that we would seek an early meeting with the

President and CEO of the Hydro Corporation. We have done that in the last

twenty-four hours. We have not proceeded to have discussions with any of the

board members who voted on these resolutions that they were dealing with. There

are ten of them. We have not sought a meeting with any of them, either those who

voted for it or those who voted against it, at this point. The option is

obviously there if we wanted to do that, but we do respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: We have not asked any of the directors to come in and speak

with us. We have not done that. Let me be clear. If we were to decide to ask any

of the directors to speak to us, we would give equal consideration as to whether

or not we would ask those who voted for it or against it, but it is premature to

talk about that because we have not done that. I acknowledge that is an option.

That is something that we may indeed consider and it may be helpful to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: We are interested in getting good help, good advice, so

that we can do a good project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sustainability is defined as the degree to which a government can maintain

existing programs and meet existing creditor requirements without increasing the

debt burden on the economy.

The net debt to GDP ratio is a measure of the government's ability to be

able to afford to carry that debt. Our GDP has been leading the country for the

past three years, and therefore we would expect the net debt to GDP ratio to go

down. Astonishingly, over the past two years, our net debt to GDP ratio has gone

up from 57 per cent to 63 per cent. The Auditor General says that if this upward

trend continues, the Newfoundland and Labrador economy will not be able to meet

the financing needs of a growing net debt.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: What solution does the minister

propose to rectify this very serious financial situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting for the first time

in a number of years one very important graph which has not been included in the

Auditor General's report: the total borrowings as a percentage of GDP, because

it shows positive variance, in fact. For the first time it shows a decrease in a

period of time, so I think that is an important piece - very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the decisions that this government has made

have been about people, and the decisions that we make have to factor in not

only the bottom line about the programs and services.

Now, every day of the week any of my colleagues can hear any of those members

across the way ask for money for everything, everything under the sun, and many

of them, I might add, are legitimate. I do not deny that. However, Mr. Speaker I

would ask them, what would they do? Would they balance the books at the risk of

health care and people's programs and services? Because this government, Mr.

Speaker, has made a choice about striking a balance. Sure, we could balance the

books tomorrow; but, Mr. Speaker, it is about people - the people we represent

and we serve - and we have chosen health care as our number one priority. We do

not apologize for that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think the people of the

Province would expect anything less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would not spend $1 million promoting Inco, and we would not spend hundreds

of thousands trying to promote and improve our own image. That is what we would

not do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Auditor General said, Mr. Speaker, even if a reader

attempted to understand what transactions caused the increase in deficit from

$47.2 million to $473.1 million last year, as a result of not preparing a

summary budget, it is not possible to determine how close government came to

meeting its fiscal plan.

Now, about a year ago, Mr. Speaker, our party released a policy indicating we

were prepared -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that our party, almost a

year ago, released a policy that said we would prepare a budget on the same

basis of accounting that is used to prepare a consolidated

summary financial

statement. I ask the minister: Why isn't she doing that instead of preparing a

misleading budget utilizing only a cash basis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the only thing being misled here, I think,

is by the member opposite when he is trying to leave the impression that somehow

the information is not there.

When I stood up here in the House and delivered the last budget I clearly

identified it was a cash-based budget. A few days ago I tabled this government's

Public Accounts, not the Auditor Generals, this governments, for all of the

people of the Province to see.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the Member for Ferryland, I listened intently

to his question. Please allow me the privilege of answering his question because

I think it is important. I would further say to the member opposite: Would you

spend forty-five cents out of every dollar in health care? Because the way you

are talking, I doubt very much if the people of the Province can expect that. I

can say, in your

preamble that was something that had to be addressed.

Further, I would say, Mr. Speaker, the money that we have spent has been

clearly identified as addressing a health care growth, which has increased

almost 50 per cent in five years, and we have made major, significant approaches

to addressing the Unfunded Pension Liability expenses. It is clear that we have

made those two priorities and all of the money is there to be identified. It has

been tabled for the people of the Province to see. There is nothing hidden, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is all there, and as far as we are concerned it is

about choices for the people that we represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't it a little unusual that the minister tries to keep talking about

health care when she almost shut down the health care system in this Province

when she was minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: She had to be taken out of the job. They had to remove her.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Auditor General's Report to the House of Assembly just this week,

the Auditor General indicated that government has contravened the Financial

Administration Act by using special warrants that were not urgently required.

Government broke the law to the tune of $33.1 million last year and to the tune

of $299.7 million since 1997. The Auditor General referenced that in his report.

The minister said in this House on Monday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - "...they have received a clean, unqualified, audit

opinion by the Auditor General."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of that, I ask the minister, in light of her own

praise and accuracy of the Auditor General, clean, unqualified audit, why is

this minister, and the government, breaking the very laws that she has sworn to

uphold?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say - and if the member were

to read what the Auditor General said, it was in his opinion. In our opinion,

spending money to fight forest fires, spending money to put into health care is

very important to us and falls under the Financial Administration Act, as it

relates to special warrants. It is all tabled in the House, it is there for

everyone to see. The member opposite would like to leave the impression,

somehow, that the "Building Hope" campaign to buy equipment and other

services is not important, that fighting forest fires is not important. We

differ over here, Mr. Speaker, because we represent people, we hear what they

say, and we respond to the issues that they put forward to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

A year ago the Province signed on with the federal government for an

Affordable Housing Framework Agreement that would deliver fifty-fifty programs

for new housing and to refurbish Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units in the

Province. Mr. Speaker, winter is setting in, the whole year has passed, without

this program being signed on in a bilateral agreement by this Province,

whereas

three territories and seven other provinces have done so.

I ask the minister: Why are we waiting so long to get involved in this

program when so many hundreds of families are in desperate need of affordable

housing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is right, last fall, the ministers in

the provinces and territories did meet with the then Minister of Housing, Mr.

Galliano, and we were able to work out a deal with him that met the needs for

Newfoundland and Labrador. Subsequent to his being there as minister, there have

been two ministers since that and these two ministers, of course, somehow did

not want to honour the commitment that was made by Mr. Galliano.

You see, what we argued for right from the beginning was that, there is not

one program that fits all across the country. One of our biggest expenditures

was to retrofit many of the housing units that are here in St. John's and

across the Province that are older units, some built in 1950. We wanted that to

be a major portion of our deal with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

We are getting there, and very, very soon I am hoping that my colleagues in

Cabinet will be able to approve of a plan that we were able to work out, a

bilateral agreement, with the federal government. We have been persistent

because we believe we know our needs best. That is why we have been long in

getting it, but I think at the end -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: - it will be beneficial, because we are really sticking to

what we had suggested in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The flexibility that the minister talks about has been granted to the

Province of Manitoba which signed on in September. There are millions of dollars

involved here for affordable housing.

I want to ask the minister whether he is prepared to signing that agreement

immediately and whether he is also committed, along with this Province which is

committed, to a fully funded national housing program with active participation

by this Province? Is that part of the minister's agenda as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite familiar with what happened in Manitoba, because the minister at

the time, Minister Sale, who was Minister of Housing and is now Minister of

Health, was the chair of the committee. I want to say to him, that there was no

particular jurisdiction, whether the provinces or the territories, that was

insistent to the federal government of having a major portion of our dollars go

into retrofit. That is why we have really been vigilant and tried to make it

happen. I think we are pretty close to doing what we want to do. Over the next

week, with my Cabinet colleagues, we should be able to conclude a deal and be

able to sign on.

It is not the fact that we have not committed. It is a $30 million project,

fifty-fifty, that we know we have had to agree to, and we do, but we believe it

is very important for us to be able to get our priorities, because what are

Newfoundland's priorities might not necessarily be what is in Manitoba or any

other province in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte. Time for one more

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a quick question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

In August, 2002, a delegation from the Town of Lewisporte, the Lewisporte and

Area Chamber of Commerce, and myself met with the minister. The purpose was the

ascertain whether or not government was fully committed to closing out the

Coastal Labrador Marine Services through Lewisporte at the end of the 2002

season. Could the minister tell the House whether or not a final decision has

been made for the operational plan for 2003?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government, recently, has been studying the whole area of the Labrador

transportation marine services. I would anticipate that we will be in a position

to make a decision on it in about a week.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I present the exceptions to the Public Tender

Act for the periods March to October for the year 2002.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave notice the other day that I wanted to introduce the motion. Before I

start some discussion and comment I just want to read into the record the motion

that I introduced the other day. Mr. Speaker, the motion reads:

WHEREAS the percentage of the province's population over the age of 65 is

increasing faster then any other Province in Canada; and

WHEREAS an aging population requires specific attention to medical treatment,

quality of life issues, affordable prescription drugs, home support services and

other direct and indirect supports; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not responding to the

health needs of the seniors in our Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

make public immediately a detailed action plan to respond to the long term care

needs of our Province's aging population.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to create some background information. We are going

to hear a lot of comments today about what government may or may not be doing

and some direction they may want to have, but I want to create the backdrop for

this kind of a resolution.

Today, in this Province, a little over 12 per cent of our population is over

the age of sixty-five; that is in the year 2002. If you look at predictions

going to 2016, which is just fourteen short years from now, the Province is

projecting to have some 19 per cent of its population over the age of

sixty-five. Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty startling increase because what we

have experienced in the last fourteen years has been slightly a little more than

a 3 per cent increase in the aging of that particular sector of the population,

but in the next fourteen years that is going to double. We are going to see a

6.4 per cent increase in the percentage of the population over the age of

sixty-five. If that is not startling enough, in the course of the next twenty

years, Stats Canada is predicting that portion of our population, the portion

that is sixty-five years and older, will more than double in this Province. If

you look at that same source, there is no other province in Canada going to

experience that kind of accelerated increased in the age population of

sixty-five and over, and it is in that context that I make this resolution.

There are a couple of other points, I think, that are important. We just

heard the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board make the comment

that there has been an increase in health spending of over 50 per cent in the

last five years. She made a reference to the fact that 45 per cent of every

program dollar in this Province is spent on health care. We, no doubt, will hear

the Minister of Health and Community Service stand today and tell the people of

this Province that they have increased spending on home support in the last

three budgets by some $4 million. He will, no doubt, stand and tell you how they

put $4 million or $5 million into personal care homes in this Province, but I

want to create another backdrop to this particular resolution, because here are

some startling facts, Mr. Speaker, and this is the part that is frightening.

If you look at this Province today, there are some over 200 people, 200

seniors in this Province, who are over the age of sixty-five, who are on a

waiting list to receive home supports. What that means is, these individuals are

living at home, they have been assessed by Health and Community Services staff

and have been deemed to require a level of support in order then to remain

independent and living in their own homes, but they are on a waiting list,

cannot get the service. They are at risk. They are a vulnerable population. They

are at extreme risk.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, there are another 150-plus people who are

getting some level of home support but the assessment process has said it is not

enough. The hours that they are getting, it is just not safe. They need more

care. They are not getting it. So, if you look just on home support alone, there

are over 400 people out there in the Province today who are on a wait list for

either new services or to have an appropriate level of service.

Mr. Speaker, when you couple that with some stats around the number of people

who are on waiting lists for nursing homes - in this Province today there are

over some 450 individuals who are on waiting lists to get into long-term care

facilities, so you have that 450 people, and another roughly 400 people on the

wait list for home supports. How can the minister or any other minister of this

government stand in the House today and suggest that they are providing an

adequate response to the health needs of the seniors in this Province when we

have over 450 of them on a wait list to get into long-term care facilities, and

we have over 400 on a wait list for home support services?

Mr. Speaker, these individuals have gone through an assessment process. They

have been deemed to be at risk. If we are not able, as a society, to respond to

the needs of an aging population, some of the more vulnerable people in our

population, the very same people - Mr. Speaker, these are the very same people

who developed Newfoundland and Labrador to where we are today. These are the

people who laid the foundation for what we have in this Province today, and here

is how we are repaying them. We are leaving them, lots of time, in a destitute

state, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is a crime. It is criminal for any

government to allow those seniors in this Province who are at risk and

vulnerable, to be left out there, not having adequate health supports.

Mr. Speaker, I would be very remiss if I did not acknowledge the existence of

government's Strategic Health Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. So, when you

read the cover of this document you would assume when you pick it up and read it

that it would map out a blue print for you, for how they are going to respond to

the critical health issues facing this Province today. Just let me read for you,

Mr. Speaker, when I turn to - and I remind you, this is about a thirty-five page

document. I look under the heading of long-term care and it only occupies just

better than half a page in this document. Just let me read for you, Mr. Speaker,

what this strategic planning document says. It says, "The current array of

residential, day, home and community-based services is inadequate from several

perspectives."

These are the government's own words, Mr. Speaker. The government are

further, saying, "...there are often few options when decisions about care

and supervision have to be made. There are many times, for example, when an

elderly person has to remain in an acute care hospital simply because a bed is

not available in a nursing home."

The document goes on, Mr. Speaker, to say, "...nursing home beds are

being occupied by people who would be better served in less regulated,

non-institutional environments; the physical structures of many facilities need

renovation or replacement with an emphasis on greater choice and movement away

from traditional institutional environments...."

This is the government's own strategic planning document. This is not news.

This is something that the people of this Province have been telling us for

years and years. The irony and the uniqueness about aging, Mr. Speaker, is that

ten years ago, fifteen years ago, people were telling governments of that day:

Here is what you can expect in 2002. So, the circumstance and the situation that

we find ourselves in, in the year 2002 ,was predictable ten years ago. We knew

it was going to happen, and it is inexcusable that we are not prepared for the

dilemma that we have today.

It is not like we are saying that we have our emergency departments today jam

filled with people who have the flu because we have had an outbreak, it was

unpredictable, you should not have known, or would not have known, and it is an

excuse and it is reasonable that you are not adequately prepared. But, Mr.

Speaker, for someone to have been told ten years ago, here is the picture that

you can expect in 2002, and to not adequately prepare for it and respond is

criminal.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that is the position that we find ourselves in today.

But, when I read on in this document I just assumed that I was going to see

something that was going to tell me exactly what was going to happen. When I

read, here is what I see: " A strategy to deal with these challenges needs

to be built on an assessment of the need for these services in each

region...." Again, I would have to agree.

So, when we know the facts, we know the circumstance we find ourselves in, we

know how vulnerable these people are, we look to a document like a strategic

plan to tell us what we are going to do. Mr. Speaker, this document tells us

absolutely nothing. The 900- plus seniors in this Province who are on waiting

lists for either long-term care services or home support services, this gives

them very little comfort, in fact no comfort at all, in knowing how this

government is going to respond to their critical needs and the crisis situation

that they find themselves in, Mr. Speaker. It gives very little comfort. That is

why this motion calls on government to immediately - not down the road in a year

or two years' time, but immediately - unveil a detailed action plan for the

future. What are we going to do with these seniors?

Maybe my colleagues have other comments that they want to make, but I do want

to make a couple of other comments in opening. When you look around this

Province, I just highlighted some of the significant issues around home

supports, the long waiting list. I have commented about what is happening in

long-term care services. We have reports, we have studies. The colleague from

Humber East has introduced petitions in this House, and my colleague and Leader

of our party has introduced comments in this House about long-term care services

on the West Coast. A deplorable situation existing in this Province where, in

fact, we have some of the existing long-term care facilities grossly inadequate:

three and four people housed in one small room; no place for their personal

effects; no place to create a home-like environment. In fact, I did a tour of

Western Memorial Hospital. They were so desperate, having medically discharged

patients still in hospital and no place to do, that they had to create a special

unit to accommodate those individuals who were medically discharged and had no

place to go. That is deplorable.

In fact, in some cases - and I will just look at the eastern region, a region

where Trinity North would exist. In the eastern region today, there are some

fourteen people, and in central there are twenty-four people, who are placed in

long-term care facilities but they want to go somewhere else. I will give you an

example. This is someone who might live in the Trinity North area, who wanted to

be placed in a nursing home or a long-term care facility close to family and

friends, who may find themselves now in Grand Bank, and family and friends

cannot visit. That is the kind of thing we are doing to some of the people who

do, in fact, end up getting placed in a long-term care facility, and that is the

kind of treatment we are giving them.

I looked recently at a report prepared by the St. John's Nursing Home

Board. I looked at one of the exhibits in the report, the profile, the

facilities that are in St. John's, and a profile that some thousand beds

currently exist, some 1,015, but here is what is startling. Let me just read it

for you. It says: Of the 755 Level III and Level IV beds required by the year

2011, only 320 can accommodate appropriately in the existing buildings.

Do you know why, Madam Speaker? This is the profile that I am showing here. I

see two nursing homes here in St. John's where over 70 per cent of the

residents are housed in rooms with three or more people in the same room. Now, I

ask you, Madam Speaker, if you have gone through life, you have made a

contribution to your community, you have raised your family, you are now at a

position in life where your health is failing, you are very vulnerable and

someone says: the only place we have to put you is we are going to take you out

of your house and we are going to move you into a small room in a long-term care

facility. You are going to share that with three or four more people and you

will have to sell all your personal effects, give them all away, because we do

not have a place for you to hang your clothes, dressers to put your pictures of

family and friends on. That is the kind of thing that we are doing, and that is

deplorable. It is shameful in this day and age when we look at the contribution

these people have made to our communities, for us to treat them in that fashion.

The other side of the coin, we have some anomalies. I will not say daily but

on a course of a month, I would get five or six calls from people who own

personal care homes in this Province. Right now, today, there are some

eighty-eight personal care homes in this Province. Many of them, Madam Speaker,

are on the brink of bankruptcy. Many of them are going out of business. Many of

them are closing their doors. Many of them have. They have not been able to

afford to keep their doors open, despite - and the minister may comment in a

moment - that in the last three years government has injected a million-plus

dollars into personal care homes in this Province, but today we have personal

care homes who are still going bankrupt. They do not have the financial

resources to continue to operate, continue to improve services and enhance the

level of care that they are providing to their residents, and that is because of

the manner in which we are regulating that industry.

I say, Madam Speaker, that is the backdrop I am creating today for the

introduction of this motion, and that is why today I am calling on government to

quickly and immediately unveil for us, their vision, their strategy. Not a

document that sounds like what I read a moment ago that acknowledges all of the

problems that we have but does not outline any kind of an action plan to deal

with it. What I am calling on today is just that. We want to see a detailed

action plan. The seniors of this Province, the family members of those seniors

want to see government's action plan today because they want to know. They

need to know. They deserve to know what is going to happen to them when they

reach this very vulnerable stage in life where they rely on society to give them

the kind of support and help that they earlier gave to society and helped us

create the great Province that we have today.

Madam Speaker, there are many other aspects to this debate that I am sure my

colleagues on both sides of this House will contribute to, but, I think, one

thing is fundamentally important and that is why we are calling on an immediate

plan today. In the early 1990s, before that, it was predictable where we were

going to be today in 2000. This government for the last thirteen years have

ignored that direction, ignored those predictions and ignored the advice of the

people who told them about an aging population and what we would expect to have

today. Here we are today, thirteen years later, and we are no further ahead. If

we do not develop an action plan, not a vision statement like we have here or

the acknowledgment of the problem. If we do not acknowledge that we do need to

move forward, in thirteen years time, when the percentage of the population of

the age of sixty-five and over has reached 19 per cent and not the current 12

per cent, we will be no better prepared and we will be much worse off because

given the planning timelines -

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Madam Speaker, just to conclude.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I just wanted to say that unless we move forward

quickly and develop an action plan, we will be in the same position fourteen

years from now as we are today, with you saying: you should have listened to

what you were told fourteen years ago.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in this House this afternoon and

engage in this debate. It is good to have the opportunity because for weeks and

months in advance of us having the opportunity to meet here in the House, the

hon. member opposite is under the cloak of releases that are coming out

regularly from the side opposite, on a constant basis, misconstruing things that

are happening within this Province, misconstruing actions of this government,

trying, constantly, to put their spin on things, trying to make matters worse

than they are and trying to cause alarm within the Province.

I read with interest this resolution brought forward by the hon. member,

suggesting, first of all, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is

not responding to the health needs of seniors in the Province. I mean, what a

statement to be - if you wanted to be helpful, I would suggest that you bring

forward something constructive that quite possibly we could support and work

together on. Just constantly tearing things down. All I hear from the hon.

member opposite is a constant barrage of: this is no good, that is no good;

looking for the first parade they can go out and jump in front of to lead, but

when it comes to giving real leadership he is nowhere to be seen. It is amazing,

absolutely amazing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: We went through a major job action just a short time ago in

this Province where we had the doctors of the Province out on strike, the hon.

member disappeared; nowhere to be seen. They could not find him. He was absent

from the Open Line programs. There were no releases coming upstairs. I am sure

the hon. members opposite must have laid off one or two staff members because

there was such a shortage of dribble coming out of his office they certainly did

not need them.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that listening to the hon. member - and I would

say with full respect - first of all, he referenced the Strategic Health Plan, a

plan that has been developed by some very competent people within my department.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, surprisingly, that it has been endorsed and

accepted by all of the bodies that are involved in the delivery of health care

in this Province. Surprise of surprise, the hon. member opposite thinks it is a

pile of garbage. Everybody else in this Province who works in the delivery of

health care services, who thinks this is a good document, obviously they do not

know what they are talking about. It is only the hon. member opposite who has a

vision for this Province. The only thing I would ask, Madam Speaker, is when is

he going to share that vision? He certainly has not done it to this point in

time. Nobody opposite has.

It is very interesting, if I could say, I think it is very revealing. We are

on the eve of having released in this country the Romanow Report, a piece of

work that everyone in this country has been waiting for in anticipation; a

commission that was stuck by the federal government to travel this Province, to

hear from all of the stakeholders, to hear from all of the citizens who were

interested, asking their concerns with regards to health care.

Madam Speaker, when they came to this Province, I represented this government

and put forward some very serious, sound suggestions as to where I felt we

should be going. The Member for Quidi Vidi, who leads the NDP, made a

presentation on behalf of his party, but lo and behold, no one appeared on

behalf of the Official Opposition. The hon. member opposite, who likes to cloak

himself in the flag and pretends to be the champion of every health care cause

in this Province, did not think it was important enough to actually appear

before the Romanow Commission and to put forward his vision and the vision for

his party as to what needed to be done in this Province.

Now, I say to the people of the Province: Is this the person who is going to

solve your problems? Is this the party who is going to solve your problems? If

the vision that they have is what we hear from the hon. member opposite, then I

assure you, you have a long ways to go because you do not have any idea at all

where you need to be going.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. Member for Baie Verte,

I know as much about health care as he does. If he wants to stand in debate, he

will have his opportunity.

Isn't it very interesting to see the hon. members opposite, they are good

at giving it out, but when they start taking it, they cannot.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: I would say someone should offer something to the hon. Member

for Baie Verte, I think he is getting a little bit carried away there.

Madam Speaker, the issue that we have under discussion here today is a

serious issue. When we talk about the needs of long-term care in this Province,

there are some very serious concerns. What I would say and what I just

indicated, it is interesting, when I mentioned the fact that they did not even

have the interest to appear before the Romanow Commission all of a sudden that

started pushing buttons. Maybe some of the hon. members opposite did not even

realize that they did not show interest enough to go down and appear before the

Romanow Commission and put forward what they saw as their vision. I would think

everybody would expect that they were going to do that. Someone who assumes or

puts themselves forward as being a government in waiting, surely you would want

to go down and say to the Romanow Commission, these are the kinds of things that

we think that should happen.

The hon. member uses terms like: crime and criminal. He stood up and said to

the seniors today, who are watching this debate in this Province, that somehow

this government is completely uncaring. What do you have to gain by getting on

with that kind of stuff? Do you think you are the only one who has any claim at

all to the moral high ground, that you are the only person who has any concern

for what seniors' needs are in this Province? I suggest to you that all of us

in this House, who have many seniors as part of our constituents, are people

that we try to represent on a regular basis.

In terms of the concerns that we have and the things that we are trying to do

on behalf of the seniors - the hon. member talks about releasing the plan.

Indeed, he is well aware that we are in fact developing a plan. We have

committed to develop that plan, which will outline and outlay what we propose to

do and what needs to happen for the seniors, in terms of providing for the

seniors' needs in this Province. In fact, I have travelled extensively

throughout this Province. I have been into a number of areas with many of my

colleagues, and the two Opposition districts as well, meeting with concerned

citizens, with councils, and discussing the needs as they see them and as they

know them. I have talked to the people who are working on the ground, who know

the concerns that are out there, and working with them in co-operation with

them, we are working to develop a plan to deal with these needs here in our

Province.

Madam Speaker, what I am suggesting and what I am saying is that what I have

heard the hon. member, in his opening remarks - and I would hope when he speaks

later one that he will put forward something constructive because at this point

in time, other than criticize and condemn, I haven't heard anything from him

that would indicate that he has any ideas or suggestions as to how things should

be done differently. In fact, we have a lot of people in this Province who are

working on a daily basis, a lot of them within my department, trying to deal

with the demands that are out there, the challenges that are out there.

We heard today in Question Period, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, talking about the fiscal situation of this

Province. Well, Madam Speaker, every day we hear hon. members opposite rising,

as they should - they have people to represent and they have their issues to

bring forward - suggesting that we need to expend more money in the area of

roads, that we need more money in the area of infrastructure, that we need more

money in this area and that area. The reality is this, for all of us: in the

last number of years, any additional monies that government has been able to

allocate and find have gone directly into health care. In fact, expenditures in

health care in this Province in the last number of years have grown year over

year. I sat in this House when we were bringing in difficult budgets, that were

seeing all departments being cut, but, in fact, even during those times of

strict restraint, the health care budget was still growing. In fact, since 1994,

in terms of the amount of money that this government has put in health care,

which includes supports for seniors as well, has increased by some $500 million.

I would defy anyone who could say that a government that puts forty-five cents

of every program dollar into health care - and that includes providing for the

needs and concerns of seniors - is not committed to seniors, and for anyone to

say, in a resolution, is not responding to the health needs of the seniors of

the Province.

We are not saying we are perfect, and we are not saying we have all the

answers, Madam Speaker, and we are not denying there are challenges out there,

but surely, during the last number of years with the $500 million in additional

funding that this government has put into health care, the hon. member opposite

would have to recognize and acknowledge we must have done something good during

that period of time. We must have been able to purchase something of some value

for the $500 million.

This, Madam Speaker, is the sort of thing, I think, that does not serve any

purpose at all, other than trying to get a message out there to people that

somehow this government is totally uncaring. As Minister of Health and Community

Services, and as the minister responsible for seniors, on a regular basis I hear

concerns from seniors. I meet with them individually and I have met with groups

who advocate on their behalf and who do a significant and important job in terms

of bringing these issues forward. But, Madam Speaker, we cannot deny the reality

as it exists today, and I, as minister, have to be very often honest, as I did

even today with groups that I have met with, and say to them: While I recognize

the justice of the concerns that you have, at this point in time I do not have

the ability to respond.

I think the public of this Province do understand that we do not have all of

the resources that we need to meet all of the challenges that are out there. In

terms of the needs of our seniors as it relates to long-term care, we are all

aware - and the hon. member opposite referenced the fact that we are developing

a long-term plan. Now, I am sure he will pooh-pooh that just as he did our

Strategic Health Plan. I am sure, even if everyone else in the Province comes

out, when we do release our long-term plan, and say it is good plan, I am sure,

I predict now, that he will on his feet saying that this is garbage, this is no

good. Because that is typical of the sort of thing that comes from the hon.

member opposite. Really, he has not seen any good to say about anything. The

other thing that I find so surprising is that, when he sat on this side of the

House, you could not do any wrong. When he walked about there, all of a sudden,

nothing is right.

Madam Speaker, it is a serious issue, there is no question. The difficulty

that we have here, that I see in terms of the resolution that has been brought

forward, is just a ploy to try to condemn government, to say that we are doing

nothing, and asking us to release a plan that the hon. member opposite knows we

are developing. Surely he realizes that you are not going to snap your fingers,

or my going over within the last couple of days and saying, we need this plan

tomorrow. It requires due diligence. It requires planning. I would say to the

hon. member opposite, if he has all of the answers, and again I repeat, it is

too bad he would not choose to share them with someone. If he has the answers to

everything, if he knows all the solutions, I am sure that Mr. Romanow and his

commission would have been delighted, Sir, to hear from you and to hear what

your vision and that of your party is, to deal with the health care issues in

this Province.

I think the people of this Province have the right to know, and when you rise

I am sure you will give us an answer to that, as to why you decided, as a group,

that you felt you were not going to participate in this process. Maybe you felt

the process wasn't worthwhile. Quite frankly, I thought it was important

enough for us to at least have input into the process, to put our ideas forward.

Whether or not it will influence what Mr. Romanow releases tomorrow, I am

certainly hopeful that his report, and I think a lot of people in this Province

and indeed in this country are looking at the Romanow report and holding out

hope for all of us, Madam Speaker, as making specific references to some of the

challenges that we face - one of the every important ones referenced in this

resolution, having to deal with long-term care.

Madam Speaker, as I said, I have travelled throughout this Province. I have

been in the areas and I have met with the people in those areas and discussed

their needs, and I visited the homes. The hon. member's area, I have been out

and visited the long-term care facility in his district, and I met with the

officials there. I was down to Bonavista South, and I visited the facility down

there. I have been on the West Coast, and met with the group there, and out in

Conception Bay North, and met with the groups there, and discussed with them

what their needs are, what their concerns are, and working with them, committing

to try to develop a proposal and a strategy whereby we can deal with the

comprehensive challenge which we face in terms of providing long-term care.

Madam Speaker, this member and my colleagues opposite do not need a lecture

in terms of the value of our seniors. We understand the contribution which they

have made to society. The fact that we are able to live in a Province like

Newfoundland today is due to the kinds of efforts that were made by my parents

and their generation and the people who are living today, and we certainly do

have a duty to try to make sure that we are able to provide for them in their

old age.

Madam Speaker, what I can say, without contradiction, is that this government

is undertaking every effort and every initiative that it can to ensure that the

long-term care needs of the people of this Province are met. We are not happy

with the situation that we do have wait lists, as the hon. member opposite has

referenced, and that is true. I have acknowledged that publicly. We do not want

that. We want to eliminate those long wait lists and we want to be in a

situation where we can respond in as quickly a fashion as we can to the need as

it arises; but, Madam Speaker, the reality is, even if I today, as minister, had

all the resources that were necessary to go out and to fix the situation as it

is today, we have to recognize that wait lists are probably going to exist for

some point and time because you cannot build exactly to the exact number. Things

do change. We would like to see the wait lists certainly shortened from what

they are now, not to have the extensive wait lists that we have now, but we have

to realize that the reality is probably going to be that there will always be in

fact some wait lists, certainly very short we would hope. We would hope that

people could be placed in these facilities in a timely fashion. Also, I as well

do not take great delight when we have to put seniors into homes that we would

love to see improve. That is what we are committed to do, Madam Speaker.

The other thing is, too, that we have to be very careful. I, as minister,

sometimes get concerned that in the debate recently in this Province as it

relates to one of our facilities, that some of the remarks made public, not by

hon. members opposite but certainly in terms of the public debate, in my opinion

brought into disrepute the public system, especially as it exists here in this

city. I have great difficulty with that because I have visited our homes here in

the city. I have been to St. Pat's, and I have been to some of the others, and

I have been impressed with the caliber of the service that is offered there, the

commitment of the professionals who work there. While the structures themselves

may be in need of upgrading, Madam Speaker, to provide a facility takes more

than infrastructure. It takes more than -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SMITH: One second to conclude, Madam Speaker.

It takes more than brick and mortar. It takes a commitment by the people who

work there, a dedication by the professional staff to try to provide the service

that is needed.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this

debate and would hope that the hon. member opposite, when he rises, will find

something that he can be positive on, because I think we are all getting a

little tired of all the negativity that is coming opposite.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today in the House and speak to the motion of my hon.

colleague. The first clause in this resolution states that the percentage of the

Province's population that is over the age of sixty-five is increasing faster

than it is in any other province in Canada.

I would like to say to the minister that hopefully we will all eventually, if

we are fortune enough, be part of that percentage. What I would like to ask is,

what do we face when we get into that age category? I would not want to be

facing what some of the seniors in our Province are facing today. Far too many

of our seniors and their families in this Province are suffering today as a

result of a lack of any action plan for the long-term care needs of our seniors.

The Minister of Finance, a little while ago, got up and spoke about people,

and how they are doing things for people and they are focusing on people. Well,

I would like to talk today about people, and some of the people who have called

my office. I would like to cite one example. There was a woman who lived in

rural Newfoundland - and I think I addressed this particular situation to

questions to the minister in the spring session. This woman was in her late

eighties, lived in rural Newfoundland, and her house was adjacent to the house

of that of her son and his wife, and they were giving her some supplementary

care, as she needed it, in order to enable her to remain in her home. That is

the home that she lived in all her life, the home where she raised her family.

Because of no employment in the area, the son had to go away, not permanently,

but he was going away for four or five months to work and taking his family with

him. In order for her to remain in her home she needed a couple of hours a day

of home support. Because the freeze was on home support, that woman was unable

to access any home support, which meant that this woman, who had been born in

the community, raised in the community, married, had her children, they were

baptized, went to school, and were married and living in that community, and now

because of a lack of employment in the community that son and daughter-in-law

had to move away, and this woman was left with nobody to take care of her, and

not one hour of home support available by this government. She was assessed and

she did, indeed, qualify, but there was not one hour of home support available

to that woman. The support that she had, as I said, came from her children.

If there hadn't been a freeze on home support, if this government had some

kind of a plan, something to offer this senior woman, this mother, this

grandmother, who lived and had raised her children in this community, she would

have been able to spend the rest of her days in that home. She would live in

that home all right. She would miss her children when they were gone away to

work, but at least she would have been able to stay and live in her home.

This case is not an isolated case, there are many, many families in the

Province, both in rural Newfoundland and in urban Newfoundland. Historically, we

were able, years ago, to take care of our senior population, able to take care

of our aging moms and our aging dads and our grandmothers, when two parents in

the family didn't have to work. Because of a change in demographics, a change

in lifestyle, a change economically, we find that most of the families in the

Province have two of the parents working. In some instances they are single

parents who are out working and they are unable to take care of their moms or

their dads or their grandparents. Because of the change in the demographics, we

have to have a plan to take care of our seniors because, as I said, seniors that

were once cared for by family members, this fact no longer exists.

My colleague spoke about the waiting list, about the number of people on the

waiting list for either long-term care facilities or for home support. Now, not

only are we placing our seniors in a traumatic situation because they want to be

able to remain in their own homes - in many instances, just a couple of hours a

day, somebody to go in for some personal care or a little bit of help in the

housekeeping, will enable that senior to remain in their home for a much longer

period. Not only are we traumatizing them by their not being able to remain in

their homes, we are placing them at risk by not having some support go in. The

longer they are left in their homes without the home support the more at risk

they become. So, are we not only traumatizing our seniors, but are we being

penny-wise and pound foolish, because by not putting in a couple of hours a day

of home support now, what we are doing is placing the seniors at risk, and

eventually they will end up in chronic care much sooner, either because they

were not taking their medication properly, or because they had nobody there to

help them and they fell and broke a hip or whatever. As well as imposing the

trauma on them and placing them at risk, we are also placing the possibility of

them ending up in a long-term care facility sooner.

I have another incident of how there is no planning. Last year, in the last

session as well, I brought up the case of a gentleman who was in intensive care.

Now, we all know the costs of being in an intensive care unit is much more

costly than having some home support in your home, but because of the lack of

planning this person was discharged from the intensive care unit, said that he

was able to go home, but there was not one hour of home support available to

that gentleman. Eventually, we put pressure on and we were able to get that

gentleman - he was not an elderly gentleman, I think he was in his mid-60s -

discharged. He is now at home and doing very, very well.

Another example of the lack of planning and how we see our seniors is what is

going on at Chancellor Park. Thirty seniors were taken into a pilot project

within the last couple of years, used as an example, used as part of a project

because the government wanted to determine how the privatization of long-term

care would go. It was fine. There were thirty seniors accepted into the plan.

Some of them - I think the number is about fifteen of them - were not even aware

that they were part of a pilot project. This pilot project is scheduled to be

over on January 31, 2003. That is about two months from now. Two months away,

thirty seniors have absolutely no idea what their fate will be on January 31.

That is what this government has done to thirty seniors in this project, who

they placed in the project. Now the seniors are not complaining about being

placed in the project and their families are not complaining about them being

place in the project, but what will happen to these seniors in two months? The

seniors do not know. Their families do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a shame.

MS S. OSBORNE: It is. It is an absolute shame! Some thirty very fragile

people, very, very vulnerable people, used as a part of a pilot project and two

months before this project is over these thirty people have absolutely no idea -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I say to the member, I should be ashamed for bringing

the plight of thirty people to this House of Assembly. Thirty people, I say to

the hon. member, who have absolutely no idea today where they will be on January

31. It is shame for me to bring it up. Well, Sir, I will bear this shame

proudly. If I have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I am beneath contempt because I get up and speak on

behalf -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: This is what a member on the government side of the House

is saying, because I stand in my place today and speak on behalf of thirty

seniors in our Province who have absolutely no idea where they will be on

January 31, that that is contemptible. Sir, I will do it everyday if I have to.

We have thirty people who have been taken into a pilot project and this

government cannot tell them where they will be on January 31, 2003, two months

from now.

There is an assessment review going ahead and the minister will probably tell

us that there is an assessment review going ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not the original thirty?

MS S. OSBORNE: Not the original thirty, no. There are fifteen who are in

and did not know that they were even part of the pilot project. They were told,

just recently, that on January 31, this pilot project is over and we do not know

what we are going to do with you. We do not know what this assessment review

will show. If it shows that the pilot project is working and that private

long-term care is successful, will the government leave them there? The

government has not said. If it shows it is not working, will the government move

them? Will they go in as a single entry? Will they be moved several times, these

thirty fragile and vulnerable people? What will happen to them? We have

absolutely no idea and they have absolutely no idea.

This is what this government thinks of the seniors in this project in this

Province, that they can use them as part of a project and sixty days before the

project is over, the people still do not know where they are going to be. They

have to go through the holidays having absolutely no idea where they will be in

two months from now.

What I am saying to the government is: Get a plan. Get a plan, not only for

these sixty people, but a plan for all the seniors in our Province. At least

these thirty people. I am asking the minister: Will he come out and say to them

whether the assessment review shows that the project was successful or whether

it shows that it was not successful and we are not going to embark on this

anymore? At least these people will know what their status is and they can at

least spend this Christmas knowing where they will be in a couple of months from

now.

What I am doing is calling upon the government to get a long-term plan, as my

colleague has introduced, so that the seniors of our Province will be taken care

of as they deserve to be. The ones who expect to go into facilities, the ones

who require home support, the ones who require home care, whether they are Level

I, Level II or Level III, no matter what their financial ability is, the

government should have a long-term plan for the long-term care, an action plan,

so that the residents of our Province, the seniors of our Province, will be

taken care of, and so that we, when we fall into that category, will know what

our future will be.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to participate in this debate on the Private Member's Resolution

presented by members opposite. I do not do so proudly because I do not believe

in bringing health care, certainly some of the specifics that we are hearing

across the floor today, into this Chamber. It is not the type of debate I would

personally prefer to get involved with.

It seems today, Madam Speaker, that in this Province anything and everything

goes. There is no topic that is above or below political debate, whether it be

seniors or peritoneal dialysis or whatever the case might be. It is all just for

the political fodder and it all makes good press. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but

I cannot agree with that concept. That is not why I got into politics. That is

not why I stand today.

MS S. OSBORNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's

West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I take an exception to the fact that I raised the plight

of the seniors in our Province as being contemptible or looking for good press.

It is very, very far from that.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is not point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I show no disrespect to the seniors. I show no disrespect to my eighty-nine

year old mother who is in one of these long-term care units. I show no

disrespect, whatsoever, to any of our seniors in this Province. I have the

utmost respect for them and everything that I can and will do, I will do for our

seniors. But, I do have a lot of problems, Madam Speaker, with making these

types of issues political.

In the Corner Brook area, Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that

there is a need for long-term care facilities. However, I would ask where the

members opposite were in 1997 when we were trying to establish a long-term care

Level I facility in Curling? In Curling, in 1997, when members opposite said

that we did not need such a facility in the City of Corner Brook. We did not

need it. I guess we did not need it because there were other places on the East

Coast which thought, perhaps, they might have needed them more. I do not know,

but the fact is, it was said we did not need them.

Madam Speaker, there is a need. There is a demonstrated need for long-term

health care on the West Coast. The document provided by the Western Health Care

Corporation, and submitted to government in February 2002, clearly outlines the

need and what it is they plan to do for it. Madam Speaker, I would say to you,

that while there have been other facilities in this Province which have been

needed since the 1980s and the 1990s, perhaps if the members who in those

districts had spent more time advocating for the needs of their own constituents

rather than doing other matters, that maybe those facilities would be a little

closer to fruition today.

Within the Corner Brook area we have a need for the facilities. Let there be

no doubt that this member, and the other Member for the Bay of Islands, strongly

supports the need for a long-term health care facility in the Corner Brook area

to take care of the residents of that city and surrounding areas.

Madam Speaker, since February 2002, not only have we succeeded in bringing

the minister, the social policy committees of Cabinet to Corner Brook to view

the facilities, to tour the facilities, we have used every means at our

disposal, including lobbying the provincial Cabinet, to establish committees to

look at the possibility of public-private sector partnering. I take great

umbrage in the fact that there are those who are accusing us of not doing all

that we possibly can to look after our senior population.

In the City of Corner Brook let there be no doubt, there is a great need for

long-term health care. That has been well demonstrated, and I believe the Member

for Bay of Islands and myself have been very successful in lobbying this

government to recognize that need and to move forward.

Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that on September 13, a

local headline in the local newspaper: Long-term care facilities would be a

priority for a Tory government. That is the headline, and the Member for Humber

West said he does not deny the need for long-term care facilities in the city

but wonders how to cover the enormous costs associated with same.

Madam Speaker, cost is very much an issue in this Province of how to get the

millions of dollars that we need to build facilities. In our conversations with

the Department of Health they tell us that there is a need at the present time

for at least three long-term care facilities in this Province. One in Corner

Brook, one in Conception Bay North - predominately Carbonear-Harbour Grace

region - and in St. John's. The total value, Madam Speaker, of $200 million.

Yet, day in, day out we hear from the other side that you should not do this

project, you should not do that because - because changes from day to day, but

obviously what they are saying is: yes, you need all this money to do all these

things but I am sorry, we are going to have to tie your hands because we do not

believe you should be doing a Voisey's Bay, because we do not believe you

should be doing a Lower Churchill.

Shortly after the statements of September 13, our Premier, in a meeting of

the St. John's Board of Trade, made some announcements. One of the

announcements that he made, as an attempt to get the $200 million needed to

build the three long-term health care facilities, he suggested the

public-private sector model. Madam Speaker, I do not know if that is the right

model, I do not know if it is the wrong model. All I do know is that it does

provide us with an option to provide long-term health care facilities to people

in three parts of our Province in the short term, rather than in the long term.

Madam Speaker, I anxiously await the report of the Premier's committee to

see exactly what it recommends and whether or not we can, in fact, move forward

with the construction of these facilities. I strongly hope that the model they

are proposing will work for us and that we will be able to move forward.

Madam Speaker, I think that was a very good announcement in October, keeping

in mind that we only first heard of the proposal in February. From February to

October we went from a proposal to a statement by the Premier of this Province

that he was looking at a public-private sector model to build three long-term

health care facilities in the Province, one of which could be located in the

City of Corner Brook.

To say that the members opposite or the Liberal members, shall we say,

representing the West Coast have not been doing their job, I think that is a lot

of poppycock.

It was just the following day, long-term care facility for the city is not a

high priority. I am not at liberty to mention the person's name, but I guess

he is the Member for Humber West. The statement is saying that the Member for

Humber West said that the problems in health care should be looked at in a

priority sequence, and it may become evident that a long-term care facility in

the city is not the most pressing need at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: What city?

MR. MERCER: The City of Corner Brook.

Clearly, at that point in time it was not considered to be a priority for the

city. As a matter of fact, that was reiterated the very same day on Bill Rowe's

Open Line and anyone can read the transcript from that meeting. Nothing has

changed.

The following day a new headline in the Western Star . The Member for

Humber West reiterates the stand on long-term care issue. As a matter of fact,

he reiterated it so well that three days later, on October 22, the editorial

read: Why confuse a simple matter? In

part it reads: Last week the Premier of

the Province said his government has already started to move forward on a

public/private sector plan to replace the outdated facilities spread around the

city and made it clear that this area needs that kind of facility most.

In response the Member for Humber West said: Dismiss the Premier's

announcement as grist for the election mill. Madam Speaker, there is no grist

for an election or politics on this side when it comes to long-term health care

in the City of Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: As the editorial writer in the Western Star stated: It

is no time to breakout the political gobbledygook. As a successful lawyer, the

Member for Humber West should know we just want a yes or no answer. It sounds

familiar.

The question was asked: Is a long-term care facility for Corner Brook at, or

near, the top of his to-do list? The editorial, Western Star .

On October 25, the Member for Humber West felt compelled to write a letter to

the Western Star reiterating his stand. Basically, the stand is: Well,

yes, I kind of agree with a long-term care facility for Corner Brook, but if,

and when, I form the government I cannot make a commitment to doing that.

That is the position that we are looking at. That is the position that we are

hearing from the other side. At the same time, we are here dealing with a motion

from the members of the other side demanding that the government, right now,

today, immediately, put forward a detailed plan responding how we are going to

deal with the long-term care needs of our Province's aging population.

Madam Speaker, I just to conclude by saying that in the City of Corner Brook

the Member for Bay of Islands and myself have been strong advocates for a

long-term health care facility. We do not need this resolution to tell us what

we need to do. We know what has to be done. We have done our job. We have done

our lobbying with the government, we have done our lobbying with the Cabinet,

and we fully expect that some time in the very need future, hopefully before

Christmas, we will be able to deliver to the City of Corner Brook a plan which

will allow for the construction, in the very near future, of a long-term health

care facility.

Madam Speaker, to say that we are not responding to the health care needs of

our seniors in our Province is a gross mis-characterization of what is in fact

true. This is not factual.

Madam Speaker, from day to day in this House and from day to day in this

Province we are hearing statements day in and day out, people saying things

which they know to be factually incorrect, in the hope that if they say them,

and if they say them enough, people will believe that they are actually true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about lies? (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: I am talking about factually incorrect statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there any difference between lies and factually

incorrect?

MR. MERCER: You have to look up the dictionary on that one.

Madam Speaker, this business of making statements which we know to be

factually incorrect, in the hope that someone will believe them to be true, is

persisting day in and day out.

As recently as just a couple of weeks ago, one of the members who perhaps

would like to run for my seat, from the other side, decided he would like to

issue a press release. The gist of his statement was, he was looking for

leadership in terms of the long-term health care facility in Corner Brook. He

was looking to people like myself and to the Member for the Bay of Islands to

provide the leadership. Anyone in the City of Corner Brook knows where the

leadership is, and it is not over there. The leadership on that issue is over

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Again, Madam Speaker, it is the same old line. Tell them a

nonfactual statement often enough, you might get someone to believe that it is,

in fact, true. This is not at all unlike what we see in today's resolution,

making statements that, "AND

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador is not responding to the health needs of the seniors in our

Province..."

What nonsense! It is true, perhaps, to say that we are not responding to all

of the needs of every person in this Province. I would not deny that. In any

system, it is sometimes difficult with the resources that you have, to provide

the quality of care that everyone needs. There is no doubt about that, Madam

Speaker.

When you look at this, it is again the same statements that I am hearing week

after week, day after day, in this House and outside, statements being made that

are not factually correct, statements made, repeated time in and time out, in

the hope that people will believe them to be true, and, in believing them to be

true, they will probably say: I guess the guy who made the statement must have

been right all along. Well, Madam Speaker, I have to say to you very clearly,

this resolution is not making factually correct statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: I, for one, as one member in this Chamber, make no apologies

for the actions -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. MERCER: Just a second to clue up, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no leave granted.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise today to support the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member

for Trinity North. In the motion, the member did, in his

whereas, say, "AND

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not responding to the

health needs of the seniors in our Province; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador make public immediately a detailed

action plan to respond to the long term care needs of our province's aging

population."

Madam Speaker, during the presentation made by my colleague, he outlined the

present status of the health care that is offered to our aging population. He

laid out the numbers and percentages of our seniors today who are over

sixty-five years of age; and 12 per cent of our population is now over

sixty-five. He said that by 2016 it will rise to 19 per cent of our population,

and by 2022, or thereabouts, it will be as high as 25 per cent of our total

population. This represents a tremendous challenge to all governments,

regardless of what party forms the government in this Province in the years to

come.

I want to go back to the very principles upon which our modern Canadian

health care system is based. I want to refer back to what Tommy Douglas, the

acknowledged father of medicare, said in 1961 - the legislation of Saskatchewan

of that year, and I quote: The concept was to remove the financial barrier

between those who need health care and those who provide it. Then he said: The

second step would be to establish a new type of delivery system in the health

field.

Twenty-five years later, when he was reflecting on it, just before his death

- and I did have the opportunity one time to meet Tommy Douglas - when he was

reflecting on what was happening in medicare, and I quote again, I think it was

1980 - he said: Surely to heaven we are not going back after all of those years

to a system in which the quality of care which patients receive depends on their

financial capacity to pay.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am delighted to hear the hon. member quote Tommy Douglas, but he neglected

to mention that Tommy Douglas was a New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan and

that he was actually quoting from a speech that I gave to the Federation of

Labour about a month ago. So I would hope that he would at least attribute that

quote to the right person. I was quoting from Tommy Douglas when I gave my

speech to the Federation of Labour, talking about the NDP premier. I appreciate

him telling the House about this great man and his contributions to the national

health care system.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

What I am quoting from, I say to the hon. member, is from a study prepared by

the Tommy Douglas Research Institute, which came out of Vancouver, and it is

called Revitalizing Medicare, written by Michael Rachlis, Robert Evans, Patrick

Lewis and Morris Barer. Nowhere there did I see the name of the Member for Quidi

Vidi. He wasn't even mentioned. He didn't even make the front page, the back

page or the middle page. So, Mr. Speaker, when he jumps up and says I am quoting

him, he had better make sure he knows the answer before he raises that

proposition.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister misunderstood what I said. The

quote that he actually quoted from Tommy Douglas was a quote that I had quoted

from Tommy Douglas to the Federation of Labour. It is a very good quote and a

very important quote and it recognizes that Tommy Douglas was very much aware of

what we were doing with health care when the CCF in Saskatchewan and later the

NDP championed the national health care system which we all are so proud of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: There is no point of order whatsoever, and I thank you for

ruling that way. It just goes to show that the member does read the occasional

bit of good literature.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the topic today because we are talking

here about the fact that my colleague from Trinity North mentioned that there

are 200 seniors on the waiting list for home support. These people are at risk.

They are vulnerable. They are waiting to get into a care facility. He also

mentioned 150 more need home support that they are not now receiving. In other

words, they need more help than they are now able to get from the current

system. There are 450 of our seniors on a waiting list for admission to nursing

home care; that is a long-term care facility. These are the people who have been

assessed. There may be more who have not been assessed or they are awaiting

assessments as we are talking.

Mr. Speaker, we want to note that many of our seniors - and my colleague

noted this as well - we are keeping our elderly in hospitals because there is no

place for them in our long-term care facilities. I spoke to a doctor a little

while ago in a rural hospital setting. He said they had like eight or ten beds.

Unfortunately, he said, four of them are occupied by seniors who they cannot

move out because there is nowhere to put them. In other words, one half of that

rural hospital's capacity, bed wise, was taken up by seniors who had no

choice. They could not send them home. They were too sick to go home. They could

be accommodated in a nursing home facility but there was nowhere for them to go.

Mr. Speaker, we want to note as well, here in the St. John's region, there

are people who are waiting to get into long-term care facilities. We have people

who are into a facility, for example, like the Miller Centre, and they are

waiting to be transferred to another institution, and they have great

frustrations because - in one case, a constituent of mine was waiting for nine

months from the time that they were admitted to the Miller Centre and told that

they were on a waiting list to be transferred to Agnes Pratt or St. Luke's, or

somewhere like that. They were nine months waiting for that transfer to occur,

in spite of all the representations that were made on their behalf by family and

by other members of the community.

Mr. Speaker, we also note that my colleague noted the personal care homes.

Just recently, I visited five or six personal care homes, some of them in my

district and some of them in the District of Conception Bay South. I talked with

some of the operators there, and they told me the tremendous struggles they have

trying to make sure that they can maintain a certain level of care, that the

wages that are paid are not very high, and certainly they have trouble

maintaining the staff quotas they would like to have in terms of the consistency

of staff. It is a real struggle. Many of these people who operate these personal

care homes find it very difficult. In fact, some of them have had to close up

their businesses and try some other ventures. That is very unfortunate, because

there is such a great