March

12, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 3

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome twelve students, Grades 3-11,

visiting from Long Island Academy in the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green

Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The students are accompanied by their teachers, Chris

Roberts and Miss Watkins, their teachers' assistant, Gleason Oake, and their

bus driver, Mr. Max Slade. Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Members Statements today will be the following, and in the

order that I read them: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair, the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, the Member

for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for the District of Humber

Valley, the Member for the District of Port de Grave, and the Member for the

District of Placentia and St. Mary's.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to mark the success of the recent Northern Lights

Trade Show and Conference that was held in Ottawa from January 31 to February 3.

Northern Lights is a trade Show and conference showcasing the exciting business

and resource opportunities in Labrador, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavit. Mr.

Speaker, this event is organized to promote business and to build partnerships

with southern Canadian businesses and encourage them to get involved with our

people.

The conference had over 500 delegates in attendance and featured a

multi-industry trade show with over 141 exhibitors, including a wide range of

organizations, private businesses and all levels of government from Nunavut,

Nunavik, Labrador and Nunatsiavit. I was very pleased with the positive attitude

that was displayed about doing business in Canada's North. The potential

opportunities existing in Labrador and across the Arctic are more evident than

at any time in our history. One of the highlights of the event was a Gala Dinner

that was hosted by the Woodward Group of Companies in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

They offered up a runway show case of seal skin products promoting a cultural

industry and displaying some of the most elegant designs of seal clothing ever

fabricated.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the organizers and the participants for their

success in this lucrative event that will lead to many benefits for Labradorians

and Northern Canadians.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in recognizing the

success of the conference and congratulating the Chambers of Commerce in the

North that were involved in organizing this event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The dawn of 2008 saw the passing of an individual whose life had touched many

in my District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and the Province as a whole. On

January 13, 2008 Sgt. Reg Gulliford, formerly of Buchans, passed away after a

courageous battle with cancer.

Sgt. Gulliford had known more than one battle in his short lifetime of

forty-six years. As a young RCMP officer serving in Powerview, Manitoba he was

seriously injured as the result of shooting following a routine incident. His

partner was killed during that incident. Following more than two dozen

surgeries, 300 points of blood and many, many months of hospitalization, Sgt.

Gulliford conquered the events of that tragic shooting and went on to continued

service in the RCMP here at headquarters at St. John's. Reg, as he was known

to most, showed everyone around him the true meaning of perseverance and

determination and that a strong will coupled with a sense of humor could conquer

almost everything.

As his brother-in-law said in delivering his eulogy, Reg taught us that

"adversity is a hurdle, not a wall".

On January 17, 2008, a solemn procession carried Sgt. Gulliford from St. John's

back to his beloved hometown of Buchans. Along the highway, dozens of police

officers lined the route in every community where there is a detachment, and a

final salute was delivered as a sign of affection and respect.

To Reg's mother, Bernice, his wife Lorie, his children, Courtney and Danika,

his sisters and brothers, as well as his many friends and colleagues who came

from all over Canada from the police force, I offer the condolences of the

constituents of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and, I am sure, of this House.

To those who knew Reg, and to those who knew of him, there is no doubt that

he will be remembered as a hero, a man of inspiration and example, and an icon

who served as a positive role model for all he encountered.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Dr. Richard Taor on becoming the

recipient of a teaching award for his contribution to the Discipline of Family

Medicine of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

The award is presented in honour of Dr. Yong Kee Jeon who practiced medicine

for twenty years and taught residents within the Family Medicine Program.

Besides being an exemplary physician, as demonstrated through his practice

and actions, other criteria that were considered for Dr. Taor receiving this

award included feedback from family medicine residents on the excellence of his

teaching, his contribution to the Discipline of Family Medicine, and his

participation in the teaching activities of the Discipline of Family Medicine.

Dr. Taor received the special award at the awards dinner of the Family

Medicine Preceptors Meeting in Gander.

Dr. Taor was born in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England, and holds medical

licence in both the U.K. and Newfoundland and Labrador. Dr. Taor has operated a

Family Practice in Port aux Basques since 1977. He was Chief of Staff of the Dr.

Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre from 1979 to 1987, and again from 1992 to 2007.

Dr. Taor and his wife, Magda, have two children.

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

congratulations to Dr. Richard Taor on receiving this prestigious award.

All the best to Dr. Taor and his family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the MHA for the District of Humber Valley, I stand in this hon. House

today to sincerely congratulate the communities of Pasadena and Deer Lake in

hosting winter carnivals again in 2008. Both communities have been hosting

winter carnivals now for approximately thirty years through a network of

community volunteers, which is in itself a very significant achievement.

Mr. Speaker, Pasadena celebrated its carnival from February 8-18, and I

commend Gary Bishop, Carnival Chairperson, and his committee for an outstanding

week of carnival events. In Deer Lake, the carnival is taking place from March

7-16. I would like to congratulate Donna Chaulk and Marilyn Young, who are

co-chairing the committee this year.

Winter carnivals are a significant economic generator in communities

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The two carnivals in my district provided

opportunities for participants, visitors and volunteers to enjoy the many

activities that winter has to offer in our region. These carnivals, however, are

only possible through the hard work and dedication of community volunteers,

support of respective councils, sponsors, and participation of residents and

visitors.

Mr. Speaker, for me winter carnivals are an opportunity to participate in

many activities that occur and also to meet constituents and discuss many of the

issues that are important to them and their communities. I salute these

volunteers for the outstanding work they do for both the social and economic

well-being of our beloved Province, Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the members

of this House to join me in extending our deep appreciation for the efforts of

those volunteers.

Thank you.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, February 9, 2008, I was honoured to

join with family and friends in wishing John and Leah Crane of Upper Island Cove

congratulations and best wishes on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

Mr. and Mrs. Crane celebrated this special occasion with an open house

provided by their family. More than 200 members of their family and friends came

to wish them well and share in their celebrations.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of all members of this hon. House, and the

viewing audience, John Crane was the Member of the House of Assembly for the

former District of Harbour Grace.

I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations and best

wishes to John and Leah Crane on the occasion of their fiftieth wedding

anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR SPEAKER : The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia and

St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is a red-letter day in the little Town of Point Lance,

situated near Cape St. Mary's, the tip of Cape St. Mary's, in St. Mary's

Bay.

The family name of Careen is synonymous with Point Lance and, today, the

family of Neil and Rosemary Careen, along with residents of the town, welcomes

their daughter, Sgt. Elaine Careen, safely home from a seven month tour of duty

in Afghanistan. Sgt. Careen served as a medic in the Kandahar area and is a

twenty-two year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, having previously served

in the Persian Gulf and Bosnia.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we salute, honour and thank Sgt. Careen and all our

Canadian soldiers for the tremendous contribution they make as they put their

lives on the line for the betterment of the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, this particular Careen family has made an outstanding

contribution to the Canadian Military effort. Sgt. Careen's sister, Virginia,

is also a twenty-two veteran of the force; her sister, Linda, has served for

over twenty years; and, her brother Sean has served for ten years.

I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting the Careen family of Point

Lance and, in particular, in welcoming Sgt. Elaine Careen safely home.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House that the provincial nominee program is

fully integrated into the goals and objectives of the $6 million provincial

immigration strategy. Under the management of the Office of Immigration and

Multiculturalism, the strategy is yielding tremendous results. As a result, the

provincial nominee program is attracting more people from around the world to

our Province. The number of nominations has grown by 36 per cent over the

previous fiscal year.

Since the launch of the strategy, a total of 162 new nominees this year are

choosing Newfoundland and Labrador as their new home. Mr. Speaker, these are

highly skilled professionals who make a contribution in many different areas.

I am also pleased to note that 56 per cent of all the nominees are choosing

to settle outside of the St. John's metropolitan area. These include

entrepreneurs involved in small business creation in many of our rural

communities.

We also see the positive contribution being made by immigrants who work to

educate the next generation at our post-secondary education and training

institutions. Other newcomers are active in building research capacity in

support of further innovation and economic growth. In recent years our Province

has attracted an average of 450 immigrants annually, and indications are that

this number is increasing.

Within five years, the provincial government's goal is to triple the number

of immigrants to our Province. Currently, the provincial nominee program has the

occupational and skilled worker, immigrant entrepreneur, and immigrant partner

categories. We support an expanded and more accessible program to realize this

immigration strategy goal.

Recently, the provincial government significantly reduced application fees

under the program. In the coming weeks, it will be further enhanced with the

addition of two new nomination categories. These categories will open the

program to international students who have graduated from our educational

institutions, and it will enable existing immigrants to bring other members of

their family to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are now one year into the implementation of the immigration

strategy. In that period, we have established a fully staffed Office of

Immigration and Multiculturalism and we are making strong improvements to the

provincial nominee program. I am confident that continued implementation of the

strategy will help attract and retain needed skills and talent as we realize

greater prosperity in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the advance

copy of his statement and to say that we are pleased to see that this strategy

is working, and to note the tremendous growth that has happened over such a

short period of time. It is great to see 162 people coming here and wanting to

make and call Newfoundland and Labrador their home.

I know, Mr. Speaker, they bring great potential and great entrepreneurial

skills with them, because many of them are settled in the immediate area where I

come from, and it is wonderful to see more of them coming here and creating

opportunities for some of our residents.

Two of the points I want to touch on, Mr. Speaker, are the two new

categories, one being the international students who have graduated from our

institutions, and those immigrants who are here and trying to bring members of

their family in. I have had occasions in my district where people who are here

had great difficulty in bringing their family members here with them, and I am

glad to see this take place.

Mr. Speaker, overall, this is a great initiative. It broadens our economic

opportunity, broadens our perspective of the whole world around us, and, with

our declining population, I am sure it will bring other people here and

hopefully many of our own residents will return home to be a part of this

prosperous Province that we hope to see in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement.

As the granddaughter of a first generation of immigrants, I am delighted to

see that we, as a Province, are moving somewhat far ahead when it comes to the

recognition of the role that immigrants can play in our society; however, in

consultations that I have had with the Multicultural Women's Organization of

Newfoundland and Labrador, an organization that I know is well known to the

minister and who has consultations with them, I know that things are not always

easy, especially for women and children. Very often it is women who - women

come, not always, but very often they are attached to a male partner who is the

main immigrant, and the family is coming with that person who is either going to

be a student or who has work identified. They are identifying many needs for

women and children.

I really encourage the minister to work very closely with the Multicultural

Women's Organization in identifying community support for women and children

as they come here as immigrants. They have a tremendous expertise as a group of

immigrant women. I think they should be seen not just as consultants but people

who become very active with the ministry in delivery of programs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to update my hon. colleagues today

on the steady increase in on-line usage rates by clients for our Companies and

Deeds Online, or CADO, system.

CADO first came on-line in January 2005. In the three years since, a number

of services have been put on-line for the convenience of clients. These services

include reserving corporate names, incorporating businesses or organizations,

filing annual return documents, filing notice of registered office documents,

notifying change in directors, obtaining certificates of good standing and

searching the registry of companies. Not only can clients conduct business at

any time, day or night from anywhere in the Province, they also have the

certainty that records are updated immediately and documents will arrive on time

and not be returned for incomplete information.

Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that we have seen a remarkable rate of

use for CADO for each corporate document type that can be filed on-line. When

the Department of Government Services brought CADO on-line, clients filed almost

6 per cent of their documents with the system. In just three short years, we are

now seeing over 25 per cent of documents filed on-line. In addition, there have

been a steady high percentage of clients who avail of obtaining certificates of

good standing immediately from their own computers. In January, 300 of 368

certificates were purchased on-line, which is over 80 per cent.

In addition to these services for corporate clients, CADO also offers search

services for the Registry of Deeds and the Mechanic's Lien Registry. I am

confident we will continue to see on-line use increase as we offer more services

on-line. In the near future, we will digitize corporate records that exist

solely in paper format up to June 2004 and we will also incorporate some smaller

registries into CADO.

Mr. Speaker, one of this government's commitments from day one was

improving access to e-government. I am very pleased that we are reaching this

commitment in our commercial registries and we will continue to look at ways to

improve on-line service for our CADO clients.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister again for an

advanced copy of this particular statement and to say, I guess, it is no

surprise. We know that on-line services are becoming more prevalent in our

society today and anything that can be done to help residents or businesses in

this Province to further their business and do it on-line on a twenty-hour hour

basis, I can assure you we are in total support of it. It is good to see the

tremendous increase from the time that this started and I guess our only wish

is, and hopefully through the years this will happen, that more of our residents

will be able to avail of such a service, and I want to commend the minister on

this particular statement.

Thank you, sir.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy. It is great. I really approve

what is happening with regard to the CADO system. It is definitely something

that is very good for business, but a couple of cautions, while I know that it

is good to have these e-services available for individuals as well under

Government Services, government will always have to remember that there are

going to be people who are not able to access e-services, therefore we always

have to make sure that there are alternative, easily alternative methods for

them to access e-services.

I think the other caution we have to look at is that people right now have

some skepticism with regard to doing things on-line because of some of the

breaches of security that have happened and I think they need to know for sure

that when they are accessing e-services that government can give them really 100

per cent assurance that their information is safe. So just to draw that to the

minister's attention.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we will be debating a motion regarding the

installation of sprinkler systems at government run health care facilities. In

preparation for this debate we had arranged a meeting this morning with the fire

commissioner to clarify some of the issues relative to this, such as getting an

update on inspections, when they were last completed, what government facilities

had been inspected and so on.

Mr. Speaker, at the last minute I received a call this morning from the fire

commissioner cancelling the meeting saying he had to go out of town on urgent

business or business anyway and I asked him if he had been directed by the

minister or anyone in the minister's department to not meet with us on this

particular issue and he would not confirm or deny that that was or was not the

case. So, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to her question.

MS JONES: I will, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is more appropriately directed to the minister. I ask him: Did

he, his deputy minister, or any officials in his department ask the fire

commissioner not to meet with the Opposition this morning on this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is no, I did not. What happened is that we needed information -

there were two issues that we needed information on, one was Bell Island and one

was Whitbourne. We needed to have a report back tomorrow for Cabinet. Cabinet is

meeting tomorrow, and the Premier stated that that would be an issue that would

be discussed. I am preparing a briefing note, and that's the reason why it had

to be done today, and that is the reason why the fire commissioner had to go out

of town.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the urgency of the fire commissioner having to complete that

business, minister, but I do not understand the urgency of not taking half an

hour to meet with the Opposition. He could have gone at 11:00 o'clock as

opposed to 10:30. I really feel that it was instigated through your department.

Mr. Speaker, I understand yesterday

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take my direction from you. I also understand from a media scrum

yesterday that they have been unable to get any statements from the Fire

Commissioner's Office.

I ask the minister: Has the fire commissioner again been asked not to speak

to the media on this issue?

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

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Significant problems have recently been identified in our foster care system.

It has been reported that there is a 20 per cent increase in the number of

children in custody and we have fewer foster families participating in the

program. Foster children are being housed in hotels and efficiency units, and

this combined with the lack of social workers and the increased workload of

these social workers. The majority of the vacancies, as I understand, Mr.

Speaker, for social workers are in the Eastern and Labrador health regions, the

same regions that carry the largest number of children in custody.

I ask the minister: Why is government not doing more to fill those vacancies

in those positions, especially when there is a crisis been identified in those

areas?

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

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For those who would have been following last year's Budget, would remember

that this government made a major commitment last year. In fact, $9 million

annualized, I say, Mr. Speaker. We made a commitment last year to strengthen our

Child, Youth and Family Services system by pledging, on an annual basis, some $9

million investment. Included in that investment was a range of initiatives that

included recruiting social workers, social worker assistants, support staff for

social workers, and a variety of other supports that would be necessary for the

people working in the field. They all will be a part of a process to strengthen

and to improve our Regional Health Authorities ability to be able to attract and

retain the qualified, confident and capable people that we need to support

children at risk in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Approximately 25 per cent of children from Innu communities in Labrador are

in foster care, realizing that Aboriginal communities have unique and special

issues that require more attention oftentimes than other regions of the

Province, yet there is a growing shortage of social workers in that area.

I ask the minister: Does government have any plans to introduce or develop a

special remuneration plan for social workers who want to work in Northern

Aboriginal communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are working as a department, we are working with each of our four Health

Authorities, and moving forward with a strategy development for Child, Youth and

Family Services. A piece of that is looking at the human resource needs of each

of our four authorities. As a part of that, human resource strategy, obviously,

compensation benefits, working conditions, supports, all become a part of that

overall strategy piece, I say, Mr. Speaker.

So, in addition to what we are doing in Labrador, we are doing it in all the

other three authorities. It will be a very comprehensive approach to making

sure, as I said a moment ago, that we have the capable, competent people that we

need to support children in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the caseload has

increased by 20 per cent, the number of children in care. I am wondering if the

minister can tell me why such an increase and why so many children are in

custody today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for everybody in

this House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to fully understand and

appreciate that only the children who find themselves most at risk are the

children in care. Bringing children in care is a last resort. Social workers in

the field have to make a critical evaluation of whether or not that child is

safer in the home or safer somewhere else, and only when that kind of detailed

assessment is done that very critical decision has to made about removing

children.

So, I want to make sure that the notion that we have an increase in the

number of children in care today versus what might be there yesterday is one

that - I think, Mr. Speaker, it is critical for us to understand that that only

happens as a last resort. So, any increase in the number of children in care

would reflect the seriousness of things that may be happening in our communities

and in some of the homes where these children are being removed from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Of course that is what we were looking to know, if the department had

compiled anything that would tell us directly what some of the contributing

factors might be in recent days.

Mr. Speaker, my next question to the minister is if he can provide me with

the statistics on the number of children that are in custody voluntarily versus

those that are there involuntary?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I will be only too glad to table for the member opposite the

profile, or the status, or the data pertaining to the number of children that

are in care today. I will get that for you and table it at a later moment.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my final question for the minister is regarding

the voluntary portion of foster care. We have been informed that there are

families that have voluntarily placed their children into foster care because of

their economic situation, referring to the fact that they are on social

assistance and they feel that their children are better provided for sometimes

financially under the foster care program.

I ask the minister if his department has done any analysis on that and on the

cost or economic implications for families that are on assistance versus those

that are putting their children into foster care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, taking children into

care is a decision that is not taken lightly. It is one that is not done unless

careful consideration has been given to the circumstance and whether or not

children are at risk or at greater risk by staying in their home than they would

be being someplace else.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the families who voluntarily have their

children in care go through that same kind of critical analysis of their

circumstance and what might be in the best interest of their children. So when

families find themselves in that circumstance in working with the social worker

who is assigned to the case, obviously, between the two of them, they have made

that determination that the child might be much safer and better cared for in a

foster circumstance than remaining in the home, and that is when the child would

be removed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked a couple of questions yesterday of the Minister of Innovation, Trade

and Rural Development concerning openness and accountability, and I will follow

up on that today.

Aside from the Comptroller General's mention of the company SAC, which we

dealt with yesterday and was reported in The Telegram story back in

February, aside from that, there are other items in the Auditor General's

report - as opposed to the Comptroller General - there are other items in the

Auditor General's report which make for interesting reading.

Under one heading, other investments by the department, the Auditor General

outlines how the minister's department, under his leadership, invested in

excess of $1 million of public money in three different companies identified

only as Companies A, B and C. In the case of Company A, the AG found there was

no legislative authority to make the investment of $500,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

My question of the minister is: Why is your department spending public funds

into private companies when, according to the Auditor General, there is no

legislative authority in place permitting these expenditures?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report referenced investments in a

number of companies, yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we understood that

we did not have a program at the time to invest in companies. We developed a

program called the Commercialization Program, as part of our innovation

strategy; and, Mr. Speaker, we now have a program that is fully accessible to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the businesses of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We understand, we agree to some extent with what the Auditor General said at

the time, and we have made appropriate changes in the intervening period so that

we could deal with it.

We also understand, Mr. Speaker, that the investments that we made in

companies was under the same legislative authority, the Financial Administration

Act, as investments made by the former Liberal government when the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile was minister in the department that I am now in, and did

exactly the same type of thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that the minister - he admitted yesterday he had a

problem with communications in his department. He has admitted now that the

Auditor General was right, that they spent money that he had no authorization

to.

The Auditor General's report also revealed that in June of 2005 the

Department of Trade and Rural Development, under direction from Cabinet, dumped

another $500,000 into Company B. This money, according to the Auditor General,

was again spent by the department without legislative authority. The files were

missing important documentation, that Company B had contravened the

subordination agreement it had signed with the department, that the firm had no

tangible assets available for security to the department, and that there were no

shareholder net worth statements nor company credit checks performed by the

department before letting the money go.

I ask the minister: What actions has your department taken since this

disclosure, and pointing out by the Auditor General, to ensure that public

money, in the future, will not be disbursed until due diligence is properly

done?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that the Auditor General was right, that we

did not have the legislative authority. I said we proceeded under the same

legislative authority, the Financial Administration Act, that every government

has proceeded under for, I suspect, the last thirty or forty years, Mr. Speaker.

We believe that we have the authority to proceed with the disbursement of

funds to companies. When we did not have a program in place, which was the case

with the three companies that I referenced, we took the appropriate action. We

did our due diligence. We compiled a Cabinet paper. We went through the proper

channels with the Economic Policy Committee of Treasury Board and the Cabinet

process. We sought the authority and we made the investment.

In some cases, Mr. Speaker, yes, the paperwork may not have been absolutely

done. There were mistakes that were made. Those mistakes, Mr. Speaker, were

corrected. If he followed on, in the Auditor General's report, the Auditor

General said there was no evidence of wrongdoing, just that the proper process

needed to be the process needed to be cleaned up, was basically what he

said. There was no evidence of any wrongdoing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another indication of mistakes being made in a department.

We are not concerned, or the public is not concerned, with what the minister

thinks is right or wrong. The public is concerned about ensuring that the

department and the minister follow the suggestions put forward by the Auditor

General, and does it right.

The Auditor General's report also revealed that in March, 2005, the

minister's department, under direction from Cabinet, approved a $100,000

investment into a company identified as C. Again, money was transferred by a

government department into private hands without the department having

legislative authority. In that case, another funding agency had, in November of

the prior year, 2004, already identified a multitude of problems with this firm,

including misleading technical information, concerns with patents, understated

project costs, and overly optimistic timelines.

My question for the minister, Mr. Speaker: What actions has the minister

taken to ensure that public money, in future, is not disbursed before all due

diligence is done? There are problems. What have you done to correct them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, it is awfully interesting. Last year, about this

time, when we were in the middle of debate, negotiations and what have you, with

a company called Petro Field Services, that we were planning on establishing out

in Port aux Basques, the hon. member was insisting that we hurry along, we hurry

along, we disburse the funds, we support the company and what have you, Mr.

Speaker. The only reason we were holding back on moving forward with investment

in that company and supporting that company was because we were doing our due

diligence. We were looking for the financial information that we required, so

that we didn't get written up in the Auditor General's report. Now he is

here today condemning us for the very same thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it that feeble attempt at deflection indicates that the minister again

has done nothing substantive to improve and ensure the Auditor General and the

people that something has been done to rectify these problems.

Mr. Speaker, as critic for the department, I sought to get more information

and details on these cases. My office submitted an Access to Information Request

to the minister's department, asking for the names of these three companies.

Now, this is the minister who told us yesterday that he is absolutely open and

accountable. The department, under the direction of the minister, refused to

provide us with those names pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

I ask the minister: Why are you refusing to reveal the names of these three

companies which, together, have received more than $1 million of public funding?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not divulged the names for the same reason that the Auditor General

did not, Mr. Speaker, and for the same reason that on April 10, 2003, when I sat

in the seat that he is sitting in, and he was sitting in the seat that the

Premier is now sitting in, with his Deputy Minister, Mr. John Scott, sitting

next to him in a seat that the Deputy Premier now sits in, and the question was

asked of a couple of companies that they had provided funding to, that had run

into some problems and were written up in the Auditor General's report. The

Leader of the Opposition at the time asked a question as to, if he could tell us

what the names were. He said, I understand that you may not be able to.

Mr. Scott said - the deputy and, of course, the minister didn't have

any problem with it; because, if he did, he would be written up in Hansard right

afterwards. In the case of the Auditor General's report on this particular

company, I would be happy to share the name of the company with you privately,

but the company is operating so these types of reports and the Auditor General's

statements are usually masked somewhat in the terms of the name of the company

because it would compromise their ability to raise capital or keep business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, deflection from the real point here will not succeed.

Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that the name of any company or other

entity which receives public funds will become public knowledge. In fact, under

every single application form by your department, Minister, it states, and I

quote: The applicant hereby agrees that should an offer of financing result from

this application, that offer shall include an agreement to make public the

financing amount and the name of the recipient, together with the purpose and

other information pertaining to the employment created.

Now, that is in the application.

I ask the minister: Why are you refusing to release the names of the

companies when the companies themselves have already agreed to make that

information public?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member is being too cute by half, because he was a minister

and he was a minister in this department. He oversaw the disbursement of funds

and he oversaw press releases and what have you and the release of information

to the public on investments in companies. He is right, we do have the right,

and we do. Every one of these three companies, to the best of my knowledge,

these three companies - there was a press release. There was a public

announcement that went out when the funds were disbursed to these companies, but

there is a reason that we do not deal with it in the Auditor General's report

and we do not deal with it afterwards because some of these companies may, and

in some cases they are - in this case - still operating. Their business has

moved along. Mr. Speaker, if we were to say the names of those companies, the

customers that they have and the customer base that they have developed could be

compromised and our investment in the company could be compromised as well.

Now if he wants to step up behind the Speaker's chair, I will tell him who

they are, but I am not doing it here in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My role here as a critic for the department is to reveal whatever information

I can determine; not to find it out for my own personal information, but for the

public information.

Minister, although you refuse to provide the names publicly of these three

companies - and you will recall it yesterday when I talked about the SAC

Manufacturing, I said that name was found by the media in a

schedule C of the

Comptroller General's report.

Will you confirm or deny that companies A, B and C that we are referring to

here now today are also contained within that

schedule C of the Comptroller

General's report?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand his role as critic because I sat over there, and he

understands my role as minister because he sat over here. His role as critic is

to try to get as much information released to the public as possible. My role as

minister is do the best job I can to protect the public purse and the public

interests in the longer term and that is why we are not going to release those

three names because there is money potentially at risk or could be compromised

in those companies by releasing the names.

Mr. Speaker, it is in the best interest of the companies, the best interest

of the public of Newfoundland and Labrador and the public purse of Newfoundland

and Labrador if those names are not, at this time, released. If the companies go

south, no problem, they are going south just like SAC went down and we are

trying to recover our money. There is absolutely no reason to worry about

compromising our financial ability or the finances of the Province. In this

case, Mr. Speaker, he knows that it is not appropriate to release those names;

just as the Auditor General knew because the Auditor General did not release

them and that is why I am not, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about companies that received government funding almost three

years ago. We are not talking about confidential, secret trade documents and

corporate information that might destroy or negatively impact the company. We

are trying to find out which companies did you give the money to. It is pretty

straightforward. We do not want to know their patents and their trade secrets.

We want to know, who did you give the money to?

In fact, Mr. Speaker - maybe you can make it simple, because you do not know

if those A, B and C are within the

schedule C of the Comptroller General's

report. Maybe, since you did mention today that you put out press releases on

all these, can you tell us what dates you put out those press releases so that

then we can easily go find out who they are? Why are we going through all those

hoops of Freedom of Information requests when you can simply tell us what the

press releases were? Will you do that, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, why did he not have a problem on April 10, 2003,

with his deputy, Mr. Scott, sitting right there in those chairs, who would not

tell the Leader of the Opposition what the two companies were that had not made

their payments to the government, that were out $2.2 million for, and so on and

so on? He would not tell us those names then because he figured compromising the

companies ability to carry on, undermining their market base, undermining their

ability to raise further capital in order to carry on operations so that the

Government in Newfoundland and Labrador might at some time in the future be able

to recover its money. He did not see anything wrong with that position then, Mr.

Speaker, because it was the right position, but he sees something wrong with it

today because it is a better political position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we started off this questioning yesterday. I asked the minister

a simple question: Was he in tune with the openness, accountability and

transparency principles espoused by the government? His answer was: I can

absolutely confirm that we do, in our department, adhere to those principles,

which is why every cent of money that we approve is made public. Now that is not

forty-eight hours ago.

So, I will ask the minister again: Why are we having this cat-and-mouse game?

Why are you being so deflective? Why are you being so secretive about this

information? Why can't you simply say: Yes, we did it. This is who they were.

We put out a press release on such-and-such a date. Is there some reason that

you can't tell us other than the fact that you feel you might negatively

impact them commercially?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, what is the member after? I mean, obviously the

cat and mouse game that is being played here today is his. He is playing to the

press gallery. He is hoping he might get a clip on TV this evening.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I just told him that if he wants to

step up here, somewhere where I can talk to him in confidence and tell him what

the companies names are now, if he wants to be irresponsible and release

those names publicly and potentially compromise the companies that we have, as

he said, around $1 million in, if he wants to do that and he wants to live with

that and see maybe one of those companies, as a result of that, lose a customer

they are after right now or, Mr. Speaker, lose another $100,000 in financing

from a private lender, a chartered bank or something like that, then he can go

and do it. I am not going to be that irresponsible but if he wants to he can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seniors and others who need home care in this Province were very disappointed

yesterday to hear the Minister of Health and Community Services say that there

will be no contingency fund for people who desperately need home care while the

Province is in the process of planning for a more equitable financial assessment

tool to assist with qualifying for home care. Nearly 40 per cent of people who

apply for home care cannot access it even though they need it. The government

ties people up in so much red tape that very often they give up even asking.

They just don't have the energy or the time to continue the fight when they

are desperately in need.

I am asking the Premier: Will this government give a timeframe for

implementing the new financial assessment tool that is more specific than

saying, as the Speech from the Throne says, government will advance plans to

implement equitable financial assessment processes. I and the public, I think,

deserve more specific details.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to correct the member opposite who is trying to quote me from

yesterday. If you want to read Hansard, which is what you should do, what I said

yesterday was that seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador and persons with

disabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador can today continue to access home

support services as they do, in the same fashion as they did yesterday, in the

same fashion as they will tomorrow.

I indicated yesterday that we are in the process of developing a strategy

around long term care and community supports. A piece of that is an evaluation

of the financial assessment tool that we currently use. As we do that, as we

better understand the current tool, better understand the implications, we will

be in a much better position to map out what it should look like on a go forward

basis to make sure we appropriately respond to the needs of the seniors and

persons with disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Well, Mr. Speaker, what is not in Hansard is what the

minister did not say. He did not directly answer my question yesterday, so now I

am going to ask it again and see if he will put a yes or a no answer to the

question so Hansard will reflect it.

I asked yesterday if people who are in desperate need but who fall short

because of the terrible financial assessment tool that we have, that the

minister recognizes is a bad tool, who are in desperate situations now and who

are waiting for homecare but cannot access it because of the results of this

tool, will this government put a contingency fund in place until a new tool is

in place that will deal with the needs of these people - yes or no? That was my

question yesterday that you never answered, Minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: What I also said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was that our

government has invested an additional $30 million over the last four years for

home support services in this Province. That is a significant commitment, I say,

Mr. Speaker, and it reflects our government's commitment to support those

individuals who want to live independently in their own homes as long as

possible.

Those individuals living, today, in Newfoundland and Labrador, who want to

access home supports, still have access to that pot of money. Close to $100

million this year we will spend on home supports. So, the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador still have the ability, working with the regional health

authorities, working with social workers, health providers, to ensure that their

individual needs are met.

There is an application process currently in place, and I suggest that anyone

in Newfoundland and Labrador today who needs home support, or working with their

families, that they deal directly with one of the four regional health

authorities who would be only too glad to work with them and look at their

financial circumstance, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit

Disclosure". (Bill 4)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural

Services". (Bill 5)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors". (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act". (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Registered Nurses".

(Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to present a petition, and I will read the body of the petition:

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

Parliament assembled.

WHEREAS there is a shortage of doctors to service the medical needs of people

in many areas of this Province; and

WHEREAS this shortage of general practitioners is causing people to have to

either go without the services of a doctor or depend on the outpatients and

emergency services offered at regional hospitals;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the

House of Assembly to urge government to improve efforts to recruit and retain

general practitioners in all areas of the Province so that they would have

adequate service.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed during the Throne Speech - and we are looking forward,

I guess, to when the Budget comes down - it was noted that there would be some

news coming on the retention of doctors and other professional people throughout

our Province.

When it comes to, I guess, a lack of doctors, I know all too well what it is

like in the Conception Bay North area. Yes, we do have doctors but I can ensure

you there is a tremendous shortage. Many of the people there do not have a

doctor at all. Many people call, wondering what they can do. They go to the

Health Sciences or St. Clare's or Carbonear General, and they don't have a

general practitioner where their reports can be sent back. They find themselves

in a very strenuous situation from time to time. Other people were fortunate to

be able to get in contact with general practitioners here in St. John's. Some

of the doctors moved to this area and they took the list of patients with them,

Mr. Speaker.

Having a shortage of general practitioners carries other responsibilities

with it, because all too often people, even people who have doctors, and others

who are trying to get into those clinics, when they call they are unable to come

up with the services of a doctor and the message manager cuts in and says: In

case of emergency, please go to the Carbonear General.

I guess, regardless of what the situation is, many people take their issues

as emergencies, and many people have to go to Carbonear General and there are

tremendous lineups. I have had calls over the recent past couple of weeks where

people have been there waiting three, four and five hours, got discouraged and

left and went back home.

It has nothing to do with the people who work at those facilities, Mr.

Speaker. Those people are stressed to the limit. It is just that there are so

many people coming there, due to a lack of general practitioners, they find it

very difficult.

Like I said, the waiting lists are tremendous so we are calling upon

government - and hopefully we will hear something about this in the Budget. It

is mentioned in the Throne Speech that over the coming days and weeks we will

see some plan that this government has in place for, I guess, not only the

retention of the doctors that we have, but a plan in place so that other people

will be coming to our Province, or those who are here in other areas.

We only recently heard of a doctor in the Trinity-Bay de Verde area; he is

the only doctor on the Trinity North shore now. He was expressing concerns about

the backlog of people he has, and he is unable to take any other patients.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will call upon the minister and hopefully over

the next couple of weeks we will hear some good news in this area.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to present a petition on behalf of people in Newfoundland and

Labrador who are taking up the cause against drug and alcohol addictions in our

Province. Mr. Speaker, they have identified the need for a long-term drug and

alcohol addictions treatment facility in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As I said yesterday, we have received petitions with thousands of names on

them from people throughout the Province, but a lot of people in the capital

city region, I must admit.

Mr. Speaker, these are people who are identifying this need because they see

the evidence of it in their communities, in their workplaces, in their social

networks and, more importantly, in their families.

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to talk a little bit about what the impact of drug

and alcohol addiction is on families, how the destructive behaviour of addicts

can impact upon the family unit, whether it be the parents, the brothers and

sisters, their own children, or whatever the case may be, and the impacts we see

and hear about in the news each and every day; because oftentimes when people

become addicted to drugs, and especially hard drugs, they have to get their fix

and they have to find the financial means to be able to do that. As a result of

it, they lend themselves to theft, they lend themselves to break and enter, and

they lend themselves to whatever they need to do to be able to supply themselves

with the drugs to fix their addictions. That is why we are seeing the increase

in crime happening, especially in our capital city.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the impact that then brings upon the family

because when you have a loved one who is an addict, oftentimes it attracts other

people into the home, other addicts, people who are drug dealers, that are

supplying your loved one with the drugs that they require and they make

appearances in your house looking for money or looking for that loved one. It is

very disruptive to the family unit, disruptive to the point that it causes a

great deal of stress and anguish in the homes, a great deal of mental discomfort

for parents and it also provides distractions to other children who might be in

that home. Oftentimes we find that people who are addicts in a family unit that

you will have cases where younger siblings will model after that person and,

again, themselves turn to drugs and alcohol as a mechanism.

Mr. Speaker, we see cases and hear about cases in our Province today where

parents of children of addicts are under a tremendous amount of stress, stress

that has caused them to have a number of effects on their mental health and

their physical health. Mr. Speaker, that, in itself, puts a great deal of

stress, not only on our prison system for the addicts but on our health care

system for those who need to have the treatments and need to be looked after.

This kind of disruptive behaviour, as I said, affects the family unit in a

number of ways. That is just one of the reasons why I certainly support the

people who are coming forward with this petition, and I hope that government

members will as well.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being 3:00 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, and this

being Private Members' Day, I call on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

now to bring forward her motion that is to be debated today.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present this motion today for debate in private members and I

certainly look forward to hearing the comments of my esteemed colleagues in the

House of Assembly as it relates to this particular issue.

This issue comes as no surprise, I am sure, to any of us in this Legislature.

It is an issue that has dominated the media for some weeks now. It is an issue,

Mr. Speaker, which speaks to the health and safety of many residents in our

Province. In fact, residents that are probably most disadvantaged in terms of

people who are hospitalized, people who have had to make our long-term care

centres their permanent residence at the later stages in their lives. Mr.

Speaker, these people need to ensure that their health and safety is being

protected.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion that I put forward today into

the record for the House of Assembly. It says:

WHEREAS on February 14 government ordered the closure of twenty-two privately

run personal care homes in the Province which were non-compliant with a 2003

order,

Section 13.1(

b) of the Fire Department Act, to install sprinkler systems

in their facilities to protect against the threat of fire; and

WHEREAS government stated that the closure of twenty-two privately run

personal care homes were made strictly on the basis of health and safety of the

residents of those facilities; and

WHEREAS it was recently discovered that several hospitals, long-term care

homes and other government run health care facilities in the Province do not

have sprinkler systems in compliance with

Section 13.1(

b) of the Fire Prevention

Act; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to protect patients and residents from fire and

safety hazards at its own health facilities;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon government to remove

the double-standard that exists between fire regulations at privately run

personal care homes and government health care institutions recognizing that

fire can occur at any facility.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, that is the resolution that we are debating

today. That is the resolution that I have put forward to the House of Assembly

and put forward simply for one reason, and the reason being that we need to

protect the people who are in our long-term care institutions and our health

care facilities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, government had absolutely no problem enforcing regulations as it

related to private care home operators in the Province. They had no problem

walking in and saying: We will close down your facility if you do not meet the

fire standards that have been outlined. I do not necessarily have a problem with

that, Mr. Speaker. I think that once laws and regulations are made in this House

of Assembly they are made for a reason and therefore they should be carried out.

In fact, I was somewhat dismayed at the fact that the Department of Health

allowed these personal care home operators to continue to operate for the past

four to five years without even complying with the regulations, and I certainly

question the fact that inspectors in the Department of Government Services and

Lands who went out and did the inspections on these facilities and in

co-operation with the Fire Commission's office, actually approved and licensed

these personal care homes every year for the last four years without even making

it a condition of their actual licence. In fact, I talked to home-care operators

who were inspected and licensed with no conditions attached to it within six

months of government invoking closure.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Department of Health did not make

this issue a priority for about four years. When they did decide to make it a

priority and to go out and wave a big stick and tell these operators that you

have a certain number of days - I forget the number of days - to conform with

the regulations or we are going to close you down, they did so without giving

any consideration to the fact that they, in their own institutions and

facilities, were not meeting the regulatory standards as well. So, nothing wrong

with having people conform to the laws, they should, but there is always a

problem when you set a double standard for yourself, and that is exactly what

has happened in this particular case through the Department of Health

responsible for those facilities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we discovered that there were a number of facilities that

were owned and operated by government that was not conforming to the regulations

after a little investigative work. It did not take a lot of effort, to be honest

with you. I spent about an hour one morning calling every health care facility

between Forteau and Nain to find out that none of them had installed sprinkler

systems. I had a couple of discussions with a couple of other people and found

out that there was no system at the Paddon home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and a

call from a reporter who indicated to me that there was neither one at the

western health care centre in Corner Brook. Shortly after that I made a few more

calls and started finding out about a whole number of other facilities

throughout the Province that had not conformed to the regulations either. So, I

say if I could find out all that information in a few phone calls in an hour or

so one morning, I would suggest that the department should have been well aware

of it long in advance of them waving the big stick to the personal care home

operators.

Mr. Speaker, it did not take a lot of research or a lot of complicated effort

to discover that there were dozens of facilities owned and operated by the

government in this Province that had not installed sprinkler systems that was

required as per code and as per the legislation

section 13 of the Fire

Inspections Act in the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, government certainly has to answer for that, and I think the

Premier made it quite clear yesterday in his scrum, and I think it was

appropriate that he made it quite clear because his minister certainly had not

made it quite clear up to this point and that it was hypocritical of the

government to expect private citizens or private care operators to conform to a

regulation that government themselves were not about to conform to. He made it

quite clear that he thought that was a hypocritical view of government to take

and that movements would be made to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect today, in the House of Assembly, that there will

be full support for the motion that I have put forward to ensure that the proper

sprinkler systems are installed in those facilities in the Province as per the

legislation that has been passed in this particular House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there were a number of issues around this particular

incident. One of the more recent issues, I guess, had to do with the fact that

today I had set up a meeting with the Fire Commissioner's Office. I had set up

a meeting with him for 10:30 this morning. I could have done it at 9:30

actually, gave him the option to do it at 9:30 this morning, to just get briefed

appropriately on this particular issue in advance of presenting this particular

bill in the House of Assembly today. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we do

is research. We do a tremendous amount of research. That means going to the very

people who deal with these issues in the Province, whether they are a frontline

social worker, whether they are the director of a department, whether it is a

Minister of the Crown, or whether it happens, in this case, to be the fire

commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely shocked this morning when I received a phone

call from the fire commissioner himself to tell me that he had been instructed

to go out of town today and was not able to make the meeting with me this

morning. I suggested that we move the meeting to immediately, which was 9:30

when he had called me, as opposed to 10:30, but he could not meet. When I asked

him if this was on the direction of the minister or someone in the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I was told that was something he could not

comment on. When a government official tells you that they do not want to

comment on something like that it means they really do not want to comment

because they probably do not want to espouse the actual situation as it is

pertained.

The minister says he did not direct the fire commissioner to not meet with

us, but he did direct him to go to Whitbourne first thing this morning. I have

to say that you had a number of weeks to do the assessment on the facility at

Whitbourne in advance of a Cabinet meeting coming up tomorrow and I think it

could have been done well in advance. Mr. Speaker, if it was that important, and

I do not underestimate the fact that it is important, but I have to say to the

minister you have had a number of days, you have had all week to have this work

prepared in advance of a Cabinet meeting that is going to happen tomorrow but

you chose to give the direction for him to do it this morning as opposed to

meeting with the Opposition, and I think that is very unreasonable and

unnecessary. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it speaks of a tremendous insecurity of the

minister and his department as it relates to this issue. We were not on any kind

of a mission to undermine the work of government. We were only asking for a

meeting with an official of the government, a person who was paid by the people,

to seek out some information for further clarification, and that is what

responsible people do in advance of debating any particular issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to find out that the minister had

given a directive for the fire commissioner to leave town this morning to

prepare a piece of work for Cabinet for tomorrow that should have been done at

least a week ago when you look at the urgency of this particular request. This

is nothing new -

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making

statements over there in terms that I directed the fire commissioner not to

speak to her, and I said this morning and in Question Period, I did not. This

was documents that had to be done today for me so I could brief Cabinet. Now,

that is what was said, that is what I did, that is what happened. On that, Mr.

Speaker, he was the only one who could attend today.

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

Are you speaking to the point of order?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly has the right to intervene

but he knows as well as I know, from his experience in this House, that there is

no point of order there.

Mr. Speaker, he may not have said to the fire commissioner: Do not meet with

the Opposition on this issue, but he did say to the fire commissioner, and I

know that he was contacted, and I know that he was informed of the meeting that

was scheduled with me this morning. I was already aware of that, Mr. Speaker,

and I know the direction that he gave him today in carrying out the business of

the government was not by accident.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out for the record, on March 6, a week ago - on

March 6 the minister made a public declaration in this Province regarding the

state of the facility at Whitbourne and the fact that this facility was being

asked to have the system installed immediately by the Fire Commissioner'

Office. That minister has had a week to direct the fire commissioner in

obtaining the information and preparing the documents for a Cabinet meeting that

happens every Thursday, Mr. Speaker, every Thursday. The minister knew full

well, he had ample time to prepare. It is not my fault that he was lax in doing

so, but I think it is absolutely no coincidence that the fire commissioner today

was given directions by the minister that were contrary to scheduled meetings

that he had already set with the Opposition.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, I want to debate the motion that is in

front of us today because we were able to obtain information through talking to

health care boards, through talking to private care home operators, through

information in the media, through dialogue we had heard from the Premier. Mr.

Speaker, we know, and we understand this issue fully in the context that there

should not be hypocrisy within government when it comes to applying the

legislation and the standards that that legislation brings to the public.

Mr. Speaker, in no way, shape or form should private institutions be forced

to conform or face a closure when government can nonchalantly deal with these

problems as they see fit within their own timetable and within their own

scheduling.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that government members should be supporting this motion

today. They should be supporting the motion to have the necessary infrastructure

installed in hospitals and in long-term care facilities throughout our Province

as is required by the fire and safety standards under the Fire Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that this should be done in as timely a fashion as

possible. We would like to ask the government to outline a

schedule for us in

which they will conform to the regulations within their public institutions and

schedule for us a time frame in which they will do that work and have it

completed. I think that would be the appropriate route to take. I am pleased

that there is finally one minister over there, that being the first minister,

the Premier, who has recognized -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I remind the member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have an opportunity to conclude my remarks at the end of the day.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this motion today. I have been listening to

the public commentary by the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite

in recent days as they have been using words like hypocritical, how government

is using a double standard and suggesting that government has some kind of a

hidden agenda here to protect its own interests.

I want to assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that nothing is

further from the truth, nothing at all. If you look at this government's

record, since we have been in government the last four years we have invested

almost $9 million in fire and life safety issues in health services and health

facilities in this Province. Seven million dollars of that, or close to $7

million of that, has been on sprinkler systems alone. In fact, this week, as we

stand in this House and debate this private member's motion, this week we have

two tenders closing for upgrades to fire sprinkler systems in Forteau and in St.

Anthony. That is a reflection of our government's commitment. We put our money

where our mouth is. We invest the kind of money that is necessary to bring our

facilities up to standards, and we will continue to do that.

Now, the other thing that is interesting - I heard the member opposite stand

a few moments ago and talk about the great pain she went through - had the phone

calls, had to phone people, phone the institutions, and call around the Province

- to find out who had sprinklers and who did not.

I say, Mr. Speaker, all she needed to do was go through her filing cabinet,

because she sat in government; she sat on this side of the House as part of a

government. In fact, at one time she was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister

of Health and Community Services. She sat in a government back prior to 2003 -

because the people of the Province need to understand, and I remind the member

opposite, that this issue arose long before 2008. The history of this issue

started in 2001, and the Leader of the Opposition sat in a government party at

that time. In 2001 this issue arose.

In fact, the order that we are talking about and she refers to the order

issued by the fire commissioner in February 2008 - was an order to comply. It

was a compliance order. Twenty-two homes were directed to comply with an order

that was issued on their watch.

In March 2003, when the member opposite sat in government, her government

issued an order to those same personal care homes. All we did, all the fire

commissioner did in recent months, was to Listen, you now need to comply

with the order I gave you back in 2003; and, in 2003 it was on their watch.

The fire commissioner, in 2003, issued an order. In 2003 the initial order

was issued, but in 2001 there was another initiative involving some eight

personal care homes where the members opposite sat in government and directed

eight other personal care homes to install sprinkler systems.

So in 2001, and again in 2003, the members opposite, who are the real

hypocrites in all of this, those real hypocrites sat in a government in 2001,

2003, and they, in fact, issued orders to personal care homes to install

sprinkler systems. They should have known as well. They stand here today, in

innocence, and say: We didn't know that no other hospitals and no other homes

didn't have sprinkler systems in them.

How irresponsible were they to issue orders in 2001 and 2003 without knowing?

When the fire commissioner issued his compliance order in 2003, we had full

awareness. We were fully aware of the current status of our other health

facilities, so we were not the hypocrites in all of this, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Before we start to debate this issue, I think it is important to put this

motion in context. So, let's deal with the tripe that is in here. Let's deal

with the garbage that is in this motion. We will look at all of the WHEREASes,

and we will acknowledge all of those because they are statements of fact, but

when you get to the "BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon

Government to remove the double-standard that exists between fire regulations at

privately run personal care homes and government health " facilities,

there is no double standard, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I will use the member's own words. She stood in this House a moment ago and

she acknowledged the words of the Premier yesterday. She acknowledged my

comments in this House yesterday. So, if she wants to acknowledge those comments

as being appropriate then I will propose that we move an amendment to the

motion.

I will propose, Mr. Speaker, that we take out the

BE IT RESOLVED as tabled in

the original motion and we will insert, as she just suggested a moment ago, so I

am taking her suggestion. Her suggestion was that the Premier's words

yesterday were appropriate. If they are appropriate, let's insert them in the

motion.

Let me read this, Mr. Speaker. I am proposing that we take out the

BE IT

RESOLVED as in the initial motion, because it does not reflect the reality; nor

does it reflect the suggestion of the mover. So, to comply with what reality is

and to comply with the suggestion of the mover, I am proposing that we change

that last part to say:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon

government to continue to act upon the recommendations of the Fire Commissioner's

Office with respect to fire regulations and the Fire Prevention Act.

I am making that motion, that we amend that. It is seconded by the hon.

member, the Government House Leader, and I table it, Mr. Speaker, for your

consideration and the consideration of the Table Officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: I notice my friend, the Deputy Opposition House Leader,

rose. I would assume he rose to speak in the debate, but my friend, of course,

the minister, has time left in his speaking time yet. All he has done for now is

to table a proposed amendment and ask the Chair to determine whether or not it

is in order. If it is in order, I am sure the minister will have a few words to

say about it and then we will get to the time when my hon. friend will

legitimately be able to ask for the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will take a short recess while we review the amendment put forward

by the Minister of Health and Community Services to determine if that amendment

is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

After conferring with the Clerks of the Table, it is deemed that the

amendment is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I think the motion that is now before the House, or the amendment before the

House, fleshes out, I believe, the more accurate reflection of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something I said a moment ago, at the very

beginning. The way the motion is worded now clearly reflects our government's

commitment to ensuring that our health facilities in this Province are safe. The

residents and the families and the patients who are attending those facilities

need to understand that as a government we are committed to ensuring that they

are safe environments for people to be living in and visiting.

In the last four years we have invested some $9 million in fire and life

safety issues in our health facilities. On an annual basis we are spending over

$40 million a year in maintenance and repairs, all major fiscal investments in

our health facilities to ensure that they are up to current standards and

current codes.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this motion, as tabled in the House today, clearly

reflects that we will - as I said in the House yesterday, when the fire

commissioner does an evaluation, an inspection and a survey in compliance with

the established regulations in the Province, and provides a direction to us, we

will comply accordingly. I think the motion as we see before us now reflects our

commitment.

My comments yesterday, and the Premier's comments yesterday and they

acknowledged the appropriateness of the Premier's comments yesterday, the

Leader of the Opposition.

Just one other point, Mr. Speaker, that I think needs to be said. As a

government, I made a comment earlier that the orders that were issued to the

personal care home owners in the first place date back prior to our

Administration. They date back to early 2003, but it was our government, in

2005, when many of these home owners could not, in fact, install those sprinkler

systems, it was our government that came to the table in 2005, in that Budget,

and allocated $4 million to assist personal care home owners in this Province to

install sprinkler systems.

So, the sprinkler systems that have been installed in these personal care

homes are a reflection of this government's commitment to assist those home

owners to bring their buildings to standard. In fact, our investment has been to

75 per cent of the total cost of installing those sprinklers in those homes.

I say, Mr. Speaker, we have worked diligently with the home owners to ensure

that their homes are up to standard. We have made that kind of commitment

through our investment and through working with them, and we, ourselves, as a

government, are ensuring that we will, through our four health authorities,

ensure that the facilities that they operate meet current-day standards and are

safe environments to be in.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this motion, and I

ask my colleagues to give consideration to the amendments as proposed and

support the motion as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand today and support, I guess, the

private member's motion that was put forward by the hon. Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Also, we will be taking into consideration the BE

IT FURTHER RESOLVED that was put forward by the hon. Minister of Health and

Community Services.

I am not going to take too much time, Mr. Speaker; I just have a few comments

to make. I know full well, and I think the minister made it very clear, that

when this recommendation was put in force was back in 2003. That is a fact, but

I also know some of the circumstances that surrounded that, from that time until

this present day. I have had a fairly close handle on it because two of the

personal care homes, out of the twenty-two that we are referring to, were in the

District of Port de Grave. There is another one in the District of

Carbonear-Harbour Grace, just on one side of the street from a district in Port

de Grave, and another one in the district of the Member for Harbour Main, in the

community of Brigus.

I spoke with the owners of both of those homes. I am not standing here today

to say that this shouldn't have been done, and the minister asked them to

comply with that order, because we all know the bottom line is the safety of the

workers and the residents in any home or any government facility throughout this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, those people were placed in a very awkward position, whether

rightly or wrongly. One particular home owner in the community of Shearstown

this order came down in 2003 - they purchased that home in 2005. It went through

the government systems that a home that did not comply with this regulation that

came down in 2003 was given the green light to be sold to another individual.

Since that time, that home has been inspected on a yearly basis. As a matter of

fact, only in November 2007 that home was inspected and cleared for operation.

The home itself yes, it is true, it is a wooden structure with three exits,

ground level, ramps to the doors.

To me, when we talk about a double standard, and I think the Premier probably

confirmed it himself yesterday, that may be the fact. What is the difference?

When you look at it from one perspective, when you look at possibly Carbonear

General, some of the floors, I understand, have sprinkler systems, and others do

not. I guess that is where I am coming from with regard to the double standard.

The individual who purchased that home in Shearstown in 2005, she had to get

three tenders, three bids, to qualify for the funding, because they just could

not afford to do it on their own. All that lady could get was one bid, and she

forwarded that to the Department of Health and Community Services in Clarenville

and they rejected it. She was told that they would not be eligible for the

funding for that very reason. She tried numerous times but could not get a bid.

I know the Minister of Health, when all of this broke about the sprinkler

systems, stated very clearly that his concern was for the safety of the

individuals, and he would be there to make sure that they had adequate places to

go if those homeowners did not comply.

The lady in question received her letter. She was told by the Fire

Commissioner's Office that she knew about it in 2003 - but she didn't own

the home until 2005. What happened? She received a letter telling her that she

had until March 13 to comply with this order.

Here was an individual who tried every which way to see that was done. They

were prepared to put the sprinkler system in, but just could not afford it on

their own.

When she received the letter at 1:00 p.m., and I just forget the exact date,

2:45 that same afternoon, who walks through the door of her home? A social

worker. A social worker came in to the residents in that home, nothing about

sprinkler systems, nothing about this may happen after March 13. The social

worker walked in and said to them: I need to know your next of kin because we

are going to try to find places to place you people.

Can you imagine the eight or ten residents, what they went through at that

point in time? Yes, and their relatives wanted the sprinkler systems installed,

the homeowner wanted to install them, but here you were with residents who were

approached by a social worker who said: I will be returning in two to three

days. You let me know where you want to be placed. That should never have

happened, Mr. Speaker, because those individuals wanted to stay where they were

and here they were being told that I will be back in two to three days. This was

in February. Why would the Department of Health or any social worker be given

permission to go into a home and upset the lives of those individuals when the

government did not know if that homeowner - they had until March 13 to comply.

Mr. Speaker, the same can be said for the other home in Shearstown. Those

individuals, they also own the home in Brigus. The lady told me that she had the

approval for the funding but just could not get anyone to come in and install it

in time. She was waiting for close to a year, she told me. I am only repeating

what those individuals referred to. The home that she had in Shearstown, this is

the second home. What she told me, anyone can go and see it, the ground is dug

up for them to construct a new home. Why would they spend the money to put a

sprinkler system in when in April of this year they may have the funding to

construct another new home? Mr. Speaker, this is what it comes down to. There is

no one on this side against installing the sprinkler systems or forcing people

to comply with them. I think all but two of them now have complied to carry out

such an order.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, all too often I guess we get carried away in

our actions. As the Minister of Health and Community Services stated, this order

was implemented in 2003, and surely it should have been done but I think all the

circumstances surrounding the issue and why some people did not comply should

have been taken into consideration before social workers walked into those homes

and said you have to give me a name of a home where you want to stay to within

the next few days.

Mr. Speaker, then we heard of the reports that came down recently dealing

with other government facilities, about places that did not have the proper

access; not all sprinkler systems in place. I know, and everyone knows, that

government cannot install sprinkler systems in all units at any given time, but

I believe they should have taken into consideration the fact that those

privately owned personal care homes should have been treated a little

differently, should have checked out what the circumstances were and why some of

them had not installed the systems.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that government should adhere to

Section 13.1(

b) of

the Fire Prevention Act and to - I guess as the motion states now, the amendment

to the Private Member's Motion, that government would continue to install

sprinkler systems, not just the couple that they have done over the last couple

of weeks now that the pressure is on.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I support the Private Member's Motion put

forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and call upon government

to continue to carry out the rules under which they govern, their own rules

under the Fire Protection Act, to see that all facilities are safe.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Education about our schools.

It is not a political issue. We are just trying to find out if all public

buildings, whether they be in education, health or whatever, that they are all

meeting the guidelines so that each and every individual in this Province,

whether young or old, can be assured that their safety is taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude my comments and say that government

would continue to install the sprinkler systems and see whatever other items

have to be taken care of so that the people of this Province, and those who use

our public buildings, are taken care of in a safe and caring manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am quite happy to stand and speak to this resolution that is on the floor

and I do so because we, in the House of Assembly, do have a responsibility for

the perception that the public holds and perception - while we can question this

saying, I think perception very often is reality. So what people perceive is

what they believe. That is what I mean, what people perceive is what they

believe. Therefore, sometimes as public figures and as people who are

accountable to the public, we have to take action and we have to do things to

help them have a perception that will be as close to reality as possible because

sometimes the perception may not be the reality, but if it is what people

believe, that is what is in people's minds.

So, we do have that responsibility, and that is why I am glad that this

resolution has come to the floor. I do not have a problem with the language

double standard because if government were to proceed down a certain lane, it

could very well be proven to be double standard. By that I mean if government

were to continue to deal with the issue in a way that is not transparent, if

they were doing it in a way that was not giving timelines, if they were not

willing to say we recognize that such and such a facility needs a sprinkler

system and our goal is to have it in place by such a date, if government was not

willing to do that, then I think we are operating under a double standard.

My concern, and what I would be saying to government as I stand here today,

is that we have the report from the fire commissioner that came out on March 6,

and in that report there are details about what is working and what is not

working. Even when the fire commissioner report indicates there is no sprinkler

system, but that they are comfortable with the fire and life safety program, I

would like to point out that I think we have a responsibility to go a step

further than what the fire commissioner is saying. We have to show people, and

the government has to show people, that they are willing to push as far as they

can to assure people they are safe, that we cannot in anyway gamble. So, the

ultimate is to have sprinkler systems. I think we would all agree that the

ultimate is not to say there are no sprinkler systems and we are satisfied with

fire and life safety program, the ultimate goal would be to have sprinkler

systems in place and our fire requirements present that as the ultimate goal. We

cannot gamble and if we do not take action on the sprinkler systems in a timely

fashion, and I do not mean everything happen now this moment in this Budget -

there has to be publicly a plan put out that gives priority, that says, this

place does not have a sprinkler system and so because of certain conditions this

is number one, the next one is number two, here are the dates, this is when it

is going to happen. It may take three Budgets to get them all in place, maybe it

all can be done in one budget, but people want a plan. People want to know that

we are not gambling.

I am urging the government - by voting for this motion, that is what I am

doing, urging the government to be accountable to people, to say to them: We

want the best possible and we have to recognize that the best possible is

sprinkler systems everywhere.

I have read the comments from the Fire Commissioner where the Fire

Commissioner talks about the difference between personal care homes and some of

the public government facilities, whether they are hospitals or long-term care.

The Fire Commission points out that some of the facilities, the personal care

homes, are wooden structures. That is true, but they are under very, very strict

regulations as well from the Fire Commissioner and they have everything in place

to deal with emergencies. They have to or they would not be opened. At the same

time, they are much, much smaller than large facilities and also everybody

inside of those personal care homes are ambulatory. By the nature of the

personal care home they have to be Level 1, Level 11, or Level 111 care; so they

are ambulatory. There is nobody who is confined to a bed. They would not be in

one of the personal care homes if they were.

When I look at all of these factors, I am not saying that we should not make

sure that the personal care homes get the sprinkler systems in, as the

government has done. I absolutely support that. But we also have to say it is

the best possible practice to have the sprinkler systems and government should

be following the best possible practice.

The next report that comes out, like the one that came out from the Fire

Commissioner's Office, and that was part of the press release on March 6, the

next thing I would like to see, next to the status column, is not just status

with regard to what the Fire Commissioner said, but I would like another column

with status of government action. When is government going to take the actions,

because people need to know that their lives are not being gambled with?

When the personal care homes were notified overnight that they were going to

be shut down if sprinkler systems were not put in place, tremendous fear was put

into people because they started to wonder, well, are we living in a safe

building or not? Families wondered are they living in a safe building and why,

all of a sudden, it had to happen overnight. That was one of the things that

concerned me most. I do not have a long history, as my colleagues in the

Official Opposition have, with regard to running government; I obviously do not.

I do not have a history with regard to homes that existed and did not exist.

However, one of the questions that came to me, in my current position, was: How

come, all of a sudden, after all of these years, now it has to happen

immediately? It said to me that there was not enough ongoing consultation with

the homes during the process. It is not enough to receive a notice and then

maybe six months later or eight months later have somebody call you up.

I think that if government is going to be depending on personal home care -

and that is not an odd thing, that happens right across the country, that you

have a mix of public and private care going on for people in every province and

territory. If government, though, is going to do that then government has to

assure a very tight relationship between government and the personal care homes.

It is not enough, I don't think, to say that the Fire commissioner is doing

his or her job - in this case it is a he - that the Fire Commissioner is doing

the job that role requires and we do not have to worry about what is going on. I

think the ministry that is responsible for personal care should be in a regular

ongoing discussion with them. There should be constant consultation because

ultimately whether our seniors are in personal home care or whether the seniors

are in government owned and operated long-term care facilities, these people are

the responsibility of government. I mean, that is the reality. These citizens

are ultimately the responsibility of government. Their care is the

responsibility of government.

There has to be a tighter ongoing relationship between the ministry and the

privately run personal home care facilities. That is something that I would urge

the ministry to make sure happens, if it does not already happen. Just as we are

saying that we want the government to continue to comply with its own fire

regulations and to continue to act as it should, I think I would like to say to

the government that if you do not have an ongoing, solid relationship with the

people who run the personal care homes then that should be put in place, a whole

process of consultation, so that we never again come to an emergency situation

which was sort of presented to us some weeks ago. We cannot have that happen

again.

I think in setting priorities we have to look at questions like which

facilities are in a more tenuous situation than others, and we do not have a

full answer for that yet I do not think. Maybe the ministry has it and it is

just not made public. When I look under, for example, the long-term care homes

in the report from the Fire Commissioner I see two. I see one in Lewisporte and

I see one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I would like to know what the reports are

on all of the long-term care homes. Maybe they are fine but they are not

reported on in this document. I think that we should have the report on all of

them. I would like to ask the government to assure that the Fire Commissioner

give out another report that includes all of the long-term care homes. Maybe

they are all fine but we do not know that. The public does not know it. That is

who we are responsible to, is the public.

My concern then - I know the government is concerned about the safety of the

people; I do not doubt that at all. I think that it is important for the public

that we are willing here this afternoon as the House of Assembly to vote

together to confirm that we all do care about the safety of the people in this

Province and to confirm that everything is going to be done to make sure that

the best possible standards are put in place. You know the wording that we have,

that the government immediately comply with its own fire regulations and

installs sprinkler systems, I think is a good way to put it, because, even

though the fire commissioner, as I said, has said that in some instances the

fire commissioner is not concerned because you have good life-saving systems in

place, the ultimate still is to have a sprinkler system. Therefore, I would want

to see us vote that the government would commit itself to installing sprinkler

systems at the government run health care facilities. Then, my own hope would be

that government would put out a public document which will give its plan for how

quickly they can do that, what the deadlines are.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to address some comments that were made, that this

was not overnight; this was a five-year process. In 2003 the fire commissioner

issued the order, and in March 2003 the Liberal government was there.

Mr. Speaker, there is not one personal care home owner who is shocked by what

happened, not one. We put a 75-25 cost-sharing ratio to make it happen. Back in

2005 this government said: Look, we understand the dilemma that you are in, and

we are going to provide assistance to help make it happen. The ultimate here is

to make it safe for the residents of those personal care homes.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about sprinklers, in terms of whether a sprinkler

system is in a building or not. The fire commissioner has said, just because

there is no sprinkler system in a facility, that does not necessarily mean it is

unsafe. There are a lot of other mitigating factors that happen in life safety

codes in a building. The sprinkler system is one of them.

Mr. Sprinkler Mr. Speaker. I am saying sprinkler so often now you could

be a sprinkler, whatever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: It is a very serious issue, though, Mr. Speaker, and I

apologize for that, but you can understand how many times I have said the word

sprinkler over the last number of days. It is almost being (inaudible). To my

hon. the colleague, he will understand that.

The code requirements for different buildings are different. From one

building to another they are different. It could be on the structure of it; it

could be on whatever is in it or whatever.

The hon. Opposition Leader said she was concerned about the ones on the Coast

of Labrador. Now, that was identified by the fire commissioner saying they are

community clinics and they did not have to be sprinklered'. The reason for

that, Mr. Speaker, is that very seldom I wouldn't say never, but very

seldom is there anyone spending overnight there. If they are, then they are

transported to the hospitals in Goose Bay and one in St. Anthony for services.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say here is this: after doing this, I

commissioned the fire commissioner to go out and look at the ten facilities that

need to have a sprinkler system in them. Now, that is if they need a sprinkler

system in them. He is go and visit each and every one of them, examine them, do

a visual inspection of them, monitor them, and report back.

Mr. Speaker, with this, our caution is that if anything is recommended - and

that is if, I do not know and I do not presume what the fire commissioner is

going to respond back to me, as minister - that will be waiting until he comes

back with that report. There is thirty days to do that. If he can do it quicker,

which I would rather, the better.

Mr. Speaker, what he is going to do in that site visit: he is doing a site

visit, review of the emergency and evacuation procedures, review the staff

training that is in those facilities, interview appropriate staff and determine

both if fire and life safety practices are in place.

That is what the fire commissioner will do. Now, go back to the fire

commissioner. At no time did a red flag go up on any of these facilities to the

fire commissioner. If they did, if a red flag did go up, then he would

investigate them.

The inspections, Mr. Speaker, are done by the municipal fire departments in

the area, and some are done by Government Services. In here, in the Avalon -

take the Avalon, for example - the St. John's Regional Fire Department is

doing numerous inspections of the facilities here. So, that is their

responsibility.

The idea that the fire commissioner is going to go out and inspect every

single facility in the Province - that is not what the fire commissioner is all

about. What happens is that, if there is a deficiency in the building that is

flagged by the fire commissioner, he will then investigate it and do a

recommendation on that. That is what happens, Mr. Speaker. That is the way the

fire commissioner operates.

Mr. Speaker, again, when I go back to the personal care homes, when that was

done back on February 14, I believe was the date, there were twenty-two closure

orders. I said in this Chamber yesterday that there were closure orders but we

wanted to have the twenty-two comply. We didn't want anything, or any one of

them, to close, not one of them.

Mr. Speaker, two closed on their own terms. One because they basically, from

what I can understand, just wanted to get out of the business, and the other one

didn't have anyone in that facility at the time the issue order was executed.

Mr. Speaker, if you take those two out of the equation, what happened since

February 14: we have the twenty remaining, and twenty have complied with that

order. I think that speaks volumes both of the initiative that this government

has taken on supporting the personal care homes and also the initiative taken by

the personal care home owners themselves, and I want to thank them for doing

that, for complying.

Now, the possible number of residents who could have been displaced is very

minimal, of the numbers that could have been. Right now, I believe, there are

four, and they come from the Holyrood Woodford facility - I think it is the

Woodford facility, four - and there is plenty of room in personal care homes

around CBS, so they will not have to move very far.

Mr. Speaker, again, there were no red flags. There were no immediate

concerns, by anyone, given to the fire commissioner on any of these facilities.

If anyone did, or had intention to do, then it would have been acted upon. Mr.

Speaker, the appropriate action would have been taken.

To say that the buildings are unsafe is not right. To say that we are

concerned about it is certainly right. We are concerned about it and we are

taking appropriate action. This government has committed to the safety of every

resident in any facility within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, we have put our money where our mouth is, in

terms of doing that. We have put in a significant amount of money, as the

Minister of Health and Community Services has articulated time and time and time

again.

Mr. Speaker, I will close now. I await the report or the briefing that I will

get from the fire commissioner. It is thirty days to do it. If he does it in

less, than I will get the briefing a lot earlier. I hope it is a lot less,

depending on the demand on the time that he has to do it, but it is explicit

orders, it has to be completed within thirty days.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair speaks now she will close the

debate.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs have so much to say

on this issue today because it was only a few days ago when he talked to CBC in

a news interview that he was not aware of the issue until CBC had contacted him

with information with regard to the health facilities. At least I can say that

he is up to speed on this issue enough that he can contribute to the debate

because he did not know anything about the infrastructure in the health

facilities until the media had called him. So, we are making tremendous

progress.

Let me just say a couple of things. When the Minister of Health was speaking

with regard to this motion he made reference to when the legislation was enacted

in the House in 2003. Mr. Speaker, that legislation was enacted at that time for

a very important reason and that was because it was recognized by the Fire

Commissioner's Office at that time that there needed to be more fire safety

precautions taken in these facilities where people were residing for longer

periods of time and certainly needed to ensure the safety of these individuals.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, that was the reason the laws were passed. I supported

those regulations in 2003 and I support those regulations today, I say to the

minister, and was proud to support them because it was lifesaving measures that

were being looked at. Some of his own colleagues were not as keen to support the

legislation back then, like the Minister of Business, the Member for Terra Nova

who claimed that it was the solution for bankruptcy of personal care home

operators in this Province and who felt they should not have to conform to the

regulations. He took tremendous opposition to it as a personal care home

operator in this Province and ran to the media with the story saying: I will not

conform. But, Mr. Speaker, times have certainly changed.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would understand that the minister, too,

realizes the importance of this bill and the importance of supporting this bill

and I am sure that he did conform to the regulations, without any doubt. So, Mr.

Speaker, things do certainly change.

Mr. Speaker, we introduced this Private Member's Motion today and we did so

because we felt that it was necessary for government to honour the legislation

that has been passed in this House in meeting the requirements for its own

institutional facilities. There were a number of those that were identified. In

fact, twenty-two throughout the Province; some of which we understand there is

some work being done on but others, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no action

taken on to date.

Mr. Speaker, one of the facilities that the Fire Commissioner's Office has

said that they will be prepared to exempt from the sprinkler system is Western

Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook. Now, under the legislation I realize, because

the legislation does say that he or she may order the owner or the occupant to

comply with the laws. So, it does say they have the option. What I do not

understand is why the same criteria was not applied to personal care home

operators? They were not assessed based on the fact as to whether they had

proper safety precautions already in place and exempted, but government owned

facilities are being assessed on that basis and some are being exempted. So, you

talk about why we insinuate there is a double standard. There are many incidents

of double standards. I am sure that all of these personal care homes as well had

panic hardware and fire escape plans and fire alarm drills and all the rest of

it, but still, was that adequate? It was not adequate. So, I would have to

question why certain facilities are being exempt, and those facilities are ones

that are owned and operated by the government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when I closed debate earlier, that at least

the first minister in the government, being the Premier, recognized the

hypocrisy that was existing in the double standard that was applying to public

facilities and private facilities. At least, Mr. Speaker, he had the ability and

the gumption to come out and own up to it and admit it when two of his own

ministers kept flip flopping and dancing around it. So, at least we have seen

some incidents where someone over there has confessed that yes, there is some

hypocrisy here, and yes, there is a double standard, and yes, we will move to

correct it.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs states that the clinics on the

Coast of Labrador do not fall under this particular legislation. Mr. Speaker, I

want to challenge that because, let me put it to you this way, yes, there are a

number of those coastal clinics that have very small numbers of people that

reside in them overnight, and I will be the first to confess that. In fact,

there are a number of these clinics that the only time they have overnight stays

is in cases where they are being medevaced to a larger hospital, either in St.

Anthony or Goose Bay, and they cannot be medevaced by air at that particular

time, then oftentimes they are hospitalized, but there are other facilities in

the same region that have longer term stay. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs

will know this because she lives in Northern Labrador. She will know that the

hospital in Hopedale and the hospital in Nain, in particular, are being used by

patients who are hospitalized at various times throughout the year and for

various extended periods at a time.

Mr. Speaker, in my own district in Forteau, at the health centre patients are

being hospitalized on a regular basis. So, Minister, while there might be some

of these clinics that could potentially be perceived as having a very low number

of people staying overnight, there are others that have larger numbers for

longer periods of time. I would ask that he certainly look into that and see

what those number of occupancy nights are before people are being medevaced to

larger facilities to be treated.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I wanted to indicate, and this is a very

important point as well, when the legislation for the installation of sprinkler

systems was introduced in the Province in 2003, it was the fire commissioner

being the lead fire person for the Province who took the lead on that

legislation. He was the one who went out and introduced the legislation and the

law, informed people who were affected and helped them conform to it. It was

also the fire commissioner in 2005, operating under the mandate of the

government opposite, that went out and issued an ultimatum to all the personal

care homes and said: You have to conform to the regulation. This was in 2005,

and at that time - I am not sure of the numbers right now, but at that time

there were still a number of facilities that had not conformed to the

regulations. So, obviously, he went out and told them that he expected them to

conform or other action would be taken. Well, it took two years for government

to move, or almost three, before any other action was taken. When that action

was taken, it was taken in the context of saying you either meet the regulations

within this period of time or we will close down your facility.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, some personal care home operators, within thirty

minutes of being informed that their facility could close, the Minister of

Health had social workers in there meeting with elderly people telling them you

are going to have to move out. Some of them were going around thinking they had

not paid their rent for that month and they would have to leave the facility.

That was the traumatizing experience that was caused for these residents simply

because government had bungled the way that they were handling this particular

situation.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to my point that the fire commissioner was the lead

person on this for the Province when the legislation was enacted in 2003, when

it was re-enforced in 2005 and again in 2008, today we learn from the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, outside of the House in a media scrum, that the fire

commissioner will no longer be the lead speaker on issues related to fire safety

in this Province; that he, as the minister, is now going to take over that

portfolio. He will answer all of the questions, the technical briefings and all

the rest of it, and the fire commissioner will no longer have those

responsibilities.