May 3, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 20

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery today, Mr. Noel Tracey, Minister of Science, Technology and

Commerce, Government of the Republic of Ireland. He is accompanied by Mr.

Michael Bagon, Executive Assistant; Mr. John Kelly, the Principal Officer of E

Commerce Division of the Science, Technology and Commerce Department; Mr. Dan

Puddister, Executive Assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; and

Mr. Kirk Tiller, Ireland/Newfoundland Business Partnership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the gallery today, fifty-one

Grade V students from Larkhall Academy in the District of St. John's North,

accompanied by: teachers, Ralph Cann and Jackie Pottle; parent chaperones, Mary

Poulain, Gail Hickey, and Richard Noel; and adult supervisor, April Stokes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There are no Statements by Members today, so we will move on

to Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to inform

the House that funding of $216,000 was provided by Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation, in partnership with the federal government, to convert

Carew Lodge in St. John's into a supportive housing complex.

As you know, homelessness is a major concern throughout the country. In

keeping with our Province's Strategic Social Plan, our aim is to seek

long-term solutions that will not only address issues like homelessness, but

prevent them. This project will provide much-needed accommodations for people

who have difficulty finding affordable housing in the downtown area.

Mr. Speaker, many members of the House may be familiar with Carew Lodge,

which is a 16-unit boarding house accommodation that had become incredibly

dilapidated and no longer met basic fire or safety codes. The Stella Burry

Foundation, under the auspices of Jocelyn Greene, purchased the property in

1999, and these funds will help them to convert the property into safe,

affordable single unit rental properties.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I visited Carew Lodge and I was very impressed

with the work that the Stella Burry Foundation has done to date. I was also

pleased to learn that tenants have been actively involved in designing the

layouts of the units to ensure that it is best suited to their needs. There is

no doubt that opportunities like this allow our government to lead the way and

shows our commitment to the development of supportive housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I congratulate the minister on this particular initiative. The spending of

these funds on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to help the residents

in this particular facility is indeed a positive step. I have some familiarity

with this particular institution. I know it has had a very difficult and

troubled past, and troubled history, so indeed this is a welcomed injection of

funds; however, on the topic of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, it was not

too long ago I spoke directly with the minister, and I had previously

corresponded with the former minister, of the need of funds with respect to a

certain housing project in my own District of St. John's East. I am talking

about in excess of 100 units in the area of Chaulker Place. I get calls

repeatedly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - that the individuals in these areas require

assistance, they require help, and I would ask the same sort of initiative to be

given in this instance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased with the news announced today by the minister. Carew Lodge

has been a very difficult place for people to live, and very difficult for

neighbors to live with. Neighbors have expressed concerns, not only about their

own circumstances but about the needs of the people who have been living in that

Lodge. I am delighted that the Stella Burry Foundation has taken it over and

will turn it into non-profit, supportive housing for people who need it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - particularly in the area of rooms for single persons

accommodation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform Members of the House of

Assembly that, in order to continue the archaeological work being conducted on

the Colony of Avalon project, government plans to relocate the road to the

federal lighthouse in Ferryland. I am making this announcement in conjunction

with my colleague, the hon. Charles Furey, Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, because this project is a priority for government.

For the past eight years, Dr. James Tuck of Memorial University of

Newfoundland has led a team undertaking work on this complex heritage site,

uncovering the first colonization of Ferryland by Sir George Calvert, later

titled Lord Baltimore, in 1620. To date, over one million artifacts have been

uncovered at this large archaeological site, which draws roughly 18,000 visitors

annually.

It was recently determined by Dr. Tuck that in order to continue this

valuable work, excavation would be necessary under the existing road to the

lighthouse, currently operated by the Canadian Coast Guard. In light of this

information, a re-routing plan for the road has been determined by officials

from my department, and approval has been given by the Coast Guard to make the

necessary changes.

Within the next several days, government will issue $115,000 to the Town of

Ferryland to construct the new road. The town, which will assume responsibility

for the road, will call tenders for the work as soon as possible. Work on the

road will commence as soon as the tenders are closed, thus allowing Dr. Tuck's

team to continue their work. We expect the road will be completed by early July.

We have already discussed the road relocation with the landowners who will be

affected by the move. They will receive formal notification from my department

within the next few days and will be compensated for the use of their land. It

is worth noting that without the use of this land, this project would not be

able to continue.

Government supports this project because of its significant economic impact

on the area and its historical benefit to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. The Colony of Avalon represents Newfoundland and Labrador's largest

archaeological site, and its contribution to this Province's tourism sector

makes this road relocation an extremely worthwhile venture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish the Minister of Finance could be as well-preserved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am certainly delighted to hear an announcement that money

has been allocated to enable the dig to proceed, because actually the dig would

not be able to proceed this year without the road being re-routed out to the

lighthouse, and work would have to stop at that dig - at a site that has

increased last year 30 per cent, an increase in tourism in actual counted visits

to the site from 14,000 up to 18,000. The number has been going up in a rapid

fashion each year.

We expect in the 20,000-some range this year to visit that site. It is a

beautiful area, a very historic part of this Province. I would hope, Minister -

and I have raised this issue on the critical issue here of getting this done -

that the land, too, that is needed for there would go through an amicable

relationship in settling that and getting an appropriate settlement rather than

following an expropriation route where there are a lot of unhappy people. People

have allowed workers to go in on their land for the last several years -

volunteered to go in and dig and use their land. Hopefully something suitable in

line with a reasonable market value can be determined thereof.

It is certainly a world-class site. It is very historic in terms of the

preservation of that. I think the archeologist, Dr. Tulk, indicated it is the

best preserved site that he has ever seen, with over a million artifacts there,

some of them being preserved almost to their original form.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly welcome the news, I say to the minister, and

hopefully again the land issue can be resolved in the very near future.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important step to preserving our historic past and uncovering our

heritage as to who we are. With the number of visitors that has been anticipated

to visit that area, it is certainly an economic boost to the sustainability of

the area. I commend the minister on making the funds available to ensure that

the road takes an alternative route so that work can continue and more artifacts

can be exposed, thereby drawing greater numbers to the area as tourists and

spending more money in the local economy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise before the House today to inform hon. members of an event taking place

tomorrow entitled the "Housing Export Outlook Seminar for the United

States."

My Department of Industry, Trade and Technology is co-sponsoring this

seminar, along with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Carol Kerley,

senior trade consultant with CMHC, will be speaking at the event. In addition,

local businessman Harvey Short of Nu-Way Kitchens Ltd. will be sharing his

export experiences in the US market.

The United States represents Canada's largest export housing market, and

has significant export potential. In fact, last year, the US housing market was

worth over $16.6 billion for all of Canada.

This seminar will provide local companies which export housing and building

products with important information on current opportunities in both the new

housing and renovation markets in the United States.

This is an excellent time for Newfoundland and Labrador to be pursuing this

market more aggressively. The US housing market is thriving, the exchange rate

is favourable for Canadian companies and reductions in tariffs have reduced

trade barriers.

The seminar tomorrow will focus on several areas, including an outlook study

on the US housing market, which highlights trends, the hottest markets and other

critical market intelligence. There will also be a focus on the renovation side

of the industry, as well as information on business practices in various regions

of the US, such as procurement and regulations.

We have already seen several success stories of local companies prospering in

the international housing market. I am sure that many members are familiar with

the Cottlesville-based company, Cottles Island Lumber/Highland Homes, which is

building homes for the community of Primavera in Chile.

This is just one example of a company that honed in on a new opportunity for

increasing its exports, and is succeeding as a result of its efforts.

The "Housing Export Outlook Seminar for the United States" presents

another opportunity for local companies to increase their business in the

international housing market.

My department is focused on helping companies in Newfoundland and Labrador

access new and expanding opportunities for export growth. This is why we

introduced the New England Trade and Investment Strategy a few months ago. That

is also why Premier Tobin and I are leading a delegation of ten local companies

to New England next week for the Team Canada Atlantic Trade Mission.

The housing market in the US has been identified by my department, Canada

Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other departments as another key trade

opportunity. I am confident that tomorrow's seminar will be beneficial for our

Province's businesses as they continue to successfully compete in

international markets with their high caliber of products and services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Any time this Province can expand our business by exporting to other

countries, primarily the United States, our closest trading partner, it is good

news for this Province.

Again, I am going to go out on a limb today and congratulate the minister I

am critic for by saying that holding a seminar, co-sponsoring a seminar, to

teach local businesses and to give them the information necessary to expand into

the export market in housing through the United States and any other countries

that we can export to, is good news. It is something we should be doing. It is

something that I have said in this House on a great number of occasions. It is

something that we should be doing more often, teaching our businesses how to

conduct business in other countries, to export, to bring money back to this

Province. Because we have skilled labourers, we have people in this Province who

are as good as, or better, than any other companies in any other part of the

world. We should be using that to promote our own economy, to strengthen our

economy, because we have a lot to offer.

Mr. Speaker, not only is it good news and the minister should be given a pat

on the back, I guess, but we should give a pat on the back to any and every

company that is involved in this and involved in exporting from our Province to

any part of the world to bring money back to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, any effort to improve the possibility of us being involved in an

export market in building and housing is a good thing. However, we are still a

net importer of lumber, building materials and supplies, and cracking the US

market in what is, admittedly, a billion dollar business is probably very

difficult to do. I think we would get an awful lot more bang for the dollar and

effort if we concentrated on insuring that our own jobs and our own offshore oil

industry, building an industry for the future, was carried on right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, putting our people to work in Marystown, in Bull Arm,

and everywhere else in the Province where we can contribute to that great

offshore industry. If the government is prepared to come into this House in six

months' time and say they have done that with respect to White Rose, then I

will be ready to congratulate her and her government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Government policy is not consistent with reference to the provision of home

support services. For example, a person under sixty-five years of age, on social

assistance, can hire an in-law or close relative to provide home support, but a

senior who is sixty-five years of age and older cannot hire an in-law or a close

relative to provide those services. As a result, an individual who is providing

home care to a person from the time a person was sixty-two until they are

sixty-five gets fired when the person turns sixty-five. This creates much

confusion and causes a lot of anxiety, a lot of distress, and discomfort to the

client.

I want to ask the minister: Why is there such an inconsistency in policy

under the same government?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are other policies that are not exactly consistent as well with respect

to the same issue. There are somewhat different policies with respect to the

availability of home care and home support for people with disabilities than

there are for other people who do not have disabilities. There are some that are

slightly different at different age categories. One of the things that we are

doing and is currently under review is looking at whether or not there is any

continuing basis for having these differences which have historically been there

and were there when the Opposition was the government, even that long ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: He can check the facts, Mr. Speaker, that these rules have

been in place for a significant period of time. There are some differences for

different categories and we are reviewing them right now, because of the fact

that this government took the initiative of taking all of the health and

community services issues and incorporating them for the first time into one

department of government. Because some of these services used to be offered by

the old Department of Social Services, some of them used to be offered by the

Department of Health, and we have had several changes in structure in the last

two years. It is now housed all in the one department and we are doing a review

as to whether there is any legitimate basis for having a slightly different set

of rules - not that there is an inconsistency - for either different age

categories, where people have access to different levels of income, or for

different status, i.e., either being a disabled person or not disabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 1989, I guess with the former government, there were a few hundred

thousand dollars spent on home care. It was only in the embryonic stage. Now,

tens of millions of dollars later the minister is indicating: The justification

for the inconsistency is because we are inconsistent with other policies in the

department. That is a very feeble response.

In certain parts of rural Newfoundland it is difficult to obtain home support

workers at $5.84 an hour when they can obtain work at a crab plant for almost

twice that amount. Furthermore, families like to hire someone that the client is

comfortable with.

I want to ask the minister: Will he stop beating around the bush and will he

move immediately to correct this inconsistency so that the age of the client

will not be a factor in who gets hired?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are many services within government and elsewhere where the level of

service and the availability of it is slightly different and is accessed in a

different way and manner dependent upon a person's age. It is not specifically

because of the age, because of course the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in

Canada prohibits any kind of discrimination or change on the basis of age. It is

done because the ages that are selected happen to coincide with points in time

in people's lives where they have access to different levels of income. While

it is defined as an age classification, it is really an income classification.

The Opposition health critic does know that in the availability of any home

support and home care service in Newfoundland and Labrador, all of it,

regardless of age and regardless of whether it is a disability or not, is all

income tested. It just happens to be convenient that age sixty and sixty-five

are ages where people in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the rest of Canada can

issue that is more disguised as an age issue rather than it really being an

inconsistency of any major proportion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has nothing to do with access to the system. The minister is missing the

point. It is not access, it is who you can get hired to provide that service.

Nothing to do with the client and their ability to pay.

Monday I raised an example in this House of inconsistencies in blood service

where in the City of St. John's you don't pay to have blood taken in your

home and in Clarenville you do. Today two different government departments have

conflicting policies. In fact, minister, in your very own department, social

workers who are responsible for people under sixty-five are hired by your

department, and community health nurses who are responsible for people

sixty-five and over by your very department, they work out in districts in the

same office, under the same department, and here we have different sets of rules

within the same basic department.

Minister, I want to ask you, will you get your act together and resolve this

problem in favour of the client who needs the care?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, most certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly get my act

together.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of gun control in this country has precipitated a

public debate throughout the land, and Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed no

exception. The concept of the registration of a gun is indeed a foreign one and

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are asking themselves: Why are they being

controlled and directed in this way? You have heard the debate, minister. Why is

it that this Province has not joined with many other Canadian provinces, many

other jurisdictions in Canada, which are prepared to challenge the validity of

this legislation before the courts of this land?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, our Province is not, at this time, taking any

stance whether it be in favour of or opposed to the federal gun control

legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the public of the Province - and this

has become an active issue, shall we say, in the last few days - make their

concerns known, obviously the Province will have to consider it, but up to this

point the Province's position is that we are not opposed to the federal gun

control registration.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: As I have indicated in the previous question, there is

indeed much public debate on this. We only have to read the editorials and

listen to the open line shows and indeed, receive the phone calls from our

constituents. I am sure the minister's phone is ringing off the hook, as are

many phones for members on this side of the House. It is an important issue, I

say to the minister, and it indeed affects many ordinary everyday

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Many Newfoundlanders find it insulting that

for a cost, Mr. Minister, they must register with a government department the

mere fact of the ownership of a gun. Why has your department been so silent in

responding to the views and opinions of many of our citizens as they continue to

voice their objection to this very ill-advised and costly registration

procedure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I realize I have not been in the department all

that long, but for the short period of time I have been there it has certainly

not been brought to my attention by any group in this Province of their

opposition. I am aware of it through the regular media sources, the same as the

Opposition parties are. It has not been officially brought to my attention. Yes,

the issue of the cost of the registration is being publicly debated, but the

basic principle of gun control through registration we have not taken any

opposition to.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let me ask the minister a very short and direct

question. What is the minister's position with respect to the cost of the

registration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, the

cost of the program of registration has far exceeded what was originally

anticipated by the federal government which is implementing this process. I

realize the public are quite upset with the costs being incurred. It is our

position that whatever has to be done by the federal government to allow the

program to be implemented at the minimum cost should be the case, and if there

are costs that are being incurred that were not originally anticipated I would

suggest that a reasonable approach would be that the federal government should

bear those costs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I would like to

preamble by saying that the focus of these questions is with the intention of

getting better regulations and policy regarding hazardous waste.

Minister, an official of your department said in November 1998 that the

Province has no standard policy regarding the disposal of liquid waste. Your

official said that while the Province does issue licences for the disposal of

liquid waste, conditions vary from permit to permit. Your official said that

your department had hoped to have a mechanism put in place to ensure the proper

dumping was carried out at the Robin Hood Bay site within months. Eighteen

months have passed, minister. Has that mechanism been put in place at this time?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regards to the hazardous waste, as the member says, there are regulated

areas and these are the waste sites. However, there are many opportunities,

especially in the northeast Avalon, where a person can dispose of the liquid

waste. There is a facility available to them, and we have streamlined the

permits and so on to make all the licences uniform throughout.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I read that question word for word. I asked

that question in May of last year and there has been no legislation brought to

this House to this date to improve those regulations. Let me ask a slightly

varying question because you responded last year by saying that there would be

legislation put in place last year. It still hasn't. If you had not delayed on

that legislation, I say to the minister, we may have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The situation that occurred at Robin Hood Bay recently could have been fatal,

I say to the minister. I ask the minister: What regulations and what policy do

you intend to bring to this House to prevent that type of activity from

happening in the future at Robin Hood Bay?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the commercial operators in this area, there is a mechanism whereby they

can dispose of the hazardous waste. However, for the household hazardous waste

there is a pilot project that has been in place now. This is the third year.

There are opportunities for individuals to get rid of the household hazardous

waste. As I have said, the City of St. John's, the town of Paradise, and the

City of Mount Pearl, along with the town of Gander, the town of Grand Falls and

the City of Corner Brook, have participated in that. At the end of that pilot

project we then will hope to be able to put in place a mechanism whereby we can

control the household hazardous waste, but for the commercial operators there is

a mechanism in place. It is part of the permitting system and there is a way

that they can dispose of that particular material.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

We need legislation now. It is too late if this happens again and if it is

fatal to human life or health. I ask the minister what guarantees he can provide

to ensure that the pesticide leak that did cause concern at Robin Hood Bay

recently is fully under control and will cause no further damage, either

environmentally to wildlife or to human health?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, all of us have a responsibility when we have

materials in houses or as business as a whole. As I said a few moments ago,

there is no excuse for anybody living in the St. John's or the Avalon region

to dispose of household hazardous waste in the Robin Hood Bay dump site. There

is an opportunity twice a year for people to do that.

I agree that the incident at Robin Hood Bay was unfortunate, it could have

been fatal, but the responsibility for all of us, in a sense, when we put things

into the garbage bags, we have to be cognizant of the fact that it will do it.

There is no way on earth, if you had whatever regulations in place, that any

government, any city, any town, can scrutinize every garbage bag to see what is

in it. The responsibility has to be with the consumer. Once the opportunity is

provided for household hazardous waste, as I said, for this region, Central and

the Western region, the onus is on us to maintain it into a proper place until

we can dispose of it properly.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question if for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Can the

minister confirm reports that among the hospital bed closures for the summer is

an entire twenty-five bed unit at the Waterford Hospital which was closed

similarly last summer? Will the minister confirm if that, in fact, is the plan

of this government? What does he intend to do with the acute care needs of the

patients who currently occupy that particular unit, given the fact that the

other twenty-five bed units already have twenty-seven people in each of them?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can most certainly confirm that is not the plan of the government. The

government does not plan, manage, administer the day-to-day operations of any of

our facilities, whether it be the Waterford or elsewhere.

I do not know, and I call tell the hon. member, without hesitation, that I

have not asked Sister Elizabeth Davis, as the CEO of the Health Care Corporation

of St. John's, which units, which beds, in which facilities she plans to close

so that they can manage the vacation schedules of the health care professionals

through the summer period.

I do know that the hon. member is one of those who has stood in this House on

several occasions and said that the health care workers deserve their vacation.

What we are doing is seeing the Health Care Corporation of St. John's managing

the system so that they can have some of their vacation. Whether they are doing

something at the Waterford, at the main General Hospital, at the Janeway or

elsewhere, that I would not know and have not asked and do not intend to ask. It

is not my job.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the response of the minister.

The mental health needs of these acute care patients at the Waterford Hospital

do not go on holiday. In the past, it has been known to happen that patients

displaced by these bed closures end up in the lockup in order to get access to

psychiatric services.

If there is a need for staff to go on vacation, then obviously there may not

be enough staff there to look after the vacation staffing needs, to provide

adequate service to the people. Will the minister take the opportunity to look

into this matter and assure this House, or be in a position to assure this

House, that the acute care needs of mental health patients in this Province will

not be harmed by a full unit closure of twenty-five beds at the Waterford

Hospital this summer?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly pass the direct question here, and a copy of Hansard, along

to Sister Elizabeth so she will know the concern that is raised, but I have

every confidence that the health care professionals, right from the CEO down,

know more about the intricacies of this issue than any of us do. Certainly more

than I do, as a school teacher who happens to be the Minister of Health

responsibly for policy and funding, not for day-to-day running of the system;

and certainly more so than our friend the lawyer who spends part of his time

here in the House and part of his time doing other things, trying to get people

elected and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I will pass the information along, and I have every

confidence that the health care professionals that we have hired will have

addressed the concern adequately and appropriately, and that they are not

interested in playing any politics with issue whatsoever; and no more am I,

quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. Minister,

why did the provincial government agree to allow the Town of Paradise the right

to erect a trunk sewer line along St. Thomas Line in the town when all parties

involved - the Department of Environment, the Town of Paradise and the Town of

Conception Bay South - agreed that the sewer line along St. Thomas' Line would

not be given the green light until phase two of a receiving water study had been

completed?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is an extensive study in the Conception Bay South area where there are

three possible sites for a sewage treatment plant: two in Conception Bay South

and one along the St. Thomas Line.

The permission that was given to the Town of Paradise to conduct that line -

it is a dry line. Once that particular line is finished, it could go into the

one into Conception Bay or the one along the St. Thomas Line. We have in writing

at the department, from the Town of Paradise, that once the line is completed

they will abide by whatever regulations are set down by the department. Whatever

appropriate levels we deem necessary when the three outfalls are finished, they

will look into that and there will be no raw sewage going into Conception Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's department is well aware that the receiving water study is

costing $250,000 and this study will be completed into the not-too-distant

future. The department cannot take the position that a trunk sewer along the St.

Thomas Line will not have any implication on the outcome of the study.

Phase one of the study indicated that the coastline along Conception Bay is

encountering environmental problems. Minister, will you do what is right and

just in this case and allow for phase two of the study to be completed, and

cancel the tender call for the trunk sewer along St. Thomas Line until all

findings of the receiving water study have been assessed? What is the rush?

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

MR. LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, when that particular line is finished, it

will go into one of the proposed sites along Conception Bay South.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, officials in your department have been advised, especially your

deputy minister, who I understand permitted this to go ahead, was advised by

people in the department that this would create a problem for you and for the

department. Can I ask you now, where the interference came from? so that your

deputy minister - while somebody else was visiting Ontario - why your deputy

minister has now given the green light? Was there any interference from people

on your side of the House or anywhere else that allowed for this to take place?

Where did the interference come from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely not. The assistant deputy minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: The assistant deputy minister, Mr. Dominie, met with the

people from that particular town and looked at the proposal. As I said, it is a

dry line, and once that line is completed it will go into one of the proposed

existing sewage treatment facilities along Conception Bay South.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

of Fisheries and Aquaculture has been saying quite frequently that his

department is working within the sealing industry to ensure that the industry

works to its full potential. Aside from participating in the fisheries

diversification program with ACOA on the joint agreement which, I say to the

minister, is not specific to seals, I ask the minister what he is doing, or what

his department is doing, to maximize the potential of this particular industry?

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

MR. EFFORD: That is a Jim Morgan question, an Open Line question.

Mr. Speaker, it has been four years and two month since I became Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture. We have addressed the sealing industry from both

perspectives. One, developing the sealing industry within Newfoundland and

Labrador to its full potential. I think I can take some credit for the massive

sales of seal oil capsules. I will take credit for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I suggest that if anybody in the Province is not now taking

them, they should, because their health will improve.

The other thing we are doing is, we have always worked with the Asian markets

to try to build up opportunities for seal products into the Asian markets. We

can't in North America, because of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, although

the Minister of Industry is now federally meeting with provincial counterparts

in Atlantic Canada to try to get that act changed so that we can export products

into the United States. The main concentration right now is on the Asian market.

Just in the last week there were major changes in the restrictions that

prevented import or export of seal products into Korea that now have opened up

another market. So hopefully, if we can convince the Asian markets to import

seal products, that will certainly increase opportunities for sealers in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, if he is the product of what

taking seal capsules does I will be very cautious about taking them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he recognizes the

value of the Canadian Sealers Association and the Seal Industry Development

Council? Does he accept that these two organizations are critical to the

continuing work of developing this particular industry?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is not only the seal oil capsule, but it is

the seal protein, and the hon. member should take some, he would have more

energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Do I recognize the Sealers Association and the Development

Council? Yes, I do, and I say very clearly that the sealing industry must be

driven by private industry. Neither this government nor the federal government

is going to subsidize, on a year-over-year basis, the sealing industry. It has

to go on its own merits. The only way it is going to go on its own merits is

when the sealing industry itself, the investment from the private industry,

makes it happen. That is the only way we can develop a solid industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he realizes that the Canadian

Sealers Association has no more funds coming in from the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans for its core funding and that it will have to close its doors within

a couple of months?

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of it. If I were to

give the Sealers Association some advice, I would go out to major companies in

Newfoundland and Labrador which are making a major investment in the fishing

industry, which are quite capable of paying the Sealers Association's rent on

an annual basis.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he is prepared to provide some

funding from the provincial coffers to help to keep this sealing industry alive?

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

MR. EFFORD: Not until I am convinced that organizations or companies in

Newfoundland and Labrador, which are involved in crab, making multi-millions of

dollars, which are involved in turbot processing, involved in herring and all

species in Newfoundland and Labrador, cannot afford to pay the rent. When I'm

convinced that all of those companies cannot afford to pay the rent then I will

take it under consideration.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. Madam Minister, the

Ministerial Panel on Education has recommended that the government double the

allocation of guidance counselors allocated to school boards. This

recommendation certainly has been put before this government before, in

particular in the Canning Report in 1996. Are you now prepared to implement that

recommendation, and when will you do it?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Welcome back.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, it is good to be back.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations contained in the Ministerial Panel's

report are all very positive recommendations and we are looking at all of them

very closely. We have accepted all of them in principle, as I said at the launch

of the report. Having said that, we are moving very quickly on a number of them;

however, we are putting in place an implementation committee to look at those

recommendations that it will take some time for us to implement.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: I take it then, Madam Minister, that the guidance

councillor allocation will not go into effect for many years to come. We have

heard that recommendation, we have heard it before. The report gives a

three-year cost estimate for implementing the panel's recommendations. Why do

the Estimates not include what I would think would be about the $5 million it

will cost to double the allocation of guidance councillor? Isn't it a fact,

minister, that you are once again paying lip service to this key recommendation

in the panel's report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There is the artifact right there, look.

I ask this to the President of Treasury Board. I have been getting a number

of calls to my office recently concerning contract employees and temporary

employees with the government. Over the past number of years it seems that

government is certainly using the process of employing people through contracts

rather than long term. Can the minister tells us why that process is being

utilized with government? There are other people I have had calls from that

actually have been employed with government for as long as fourteen years and

are still on temporary employment which affects, of course, their benefits and

affects their -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - pensions and other benefits. So would the minister

consider also - because I only have a minute left to ask the question - or put

some kind of a program in place that once -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am asking it.

Will the minister consider putting a program in place that once an employee

has been on temporary for, say, three years, that they would automatically

become permanent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the member opposite, I think if you were to poll public sector people in

this Province they would tell you themselves that this is the first bit of

stability they have had in the workforce for years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been some questions in the last couple of days by the Leader of

the Opposition in the House referring to a Freedom of Information request to the

everybody in the House, I'm sure that if there are further questions in the

coming days they too would like to have the information, so I will table the

information that was received so that (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

Private Member's Day

MR. SPEAKER: Today being Wednesday, we go to the private member's

resolution.

I believe it is the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today with this private member's motion which I will read for the

record:

WHEREAS the people of Labrador have endured a shortage of personal care

facilities for seniors in Labrador;

AND

WHEREAS both the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board and the Labrador

Health Board have highlighted concerns with regard to this type of facility for

seniors in Labrador;

AND

WHEREAS there are areas of Labrador that have no personal care facilities

at present;

AND

WHEREAS it is understood that there is a "moratorium" denying

any further investment of government funds in personal care facilities;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House support the adoption of

policies that encourage the investment of federal-provincial funds into the

construction of personal care facilities for communities in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I bring that resolution to the House of Assembly today for a

couple of reasons. First of all, I want to talk a little bit about the

demographics of Labrador and how personal care homes in this Province are

proportioned. Today we have eighty personal care facilities across the Province

and we have only one of those facilities located in Labrador. It is a twenty-bed

facility that operates out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and it is a fine facility,

as the other seventy-nine across the Province are, in terms of providing

services to seniors in communities.

As most of you will know, when we talk about personal care homes we talk

about homes that provide level I and II care to our elderly people in society.

It is designed to meet all of their needs in a residential environment, whether

those needs be physical, psychological, emotional or spiritual, and we have been

able to do that. I feel that, as a government and as a society, we have

certainly strived to be able to meet the needs of our aging population across

the Province. We have gone out of our way on occasion to be accommodating to

We have gone out of our way on occasion to be accommodating to our seniors in

society and to be able to meet the different aspects and needs that they have.

We have certainly concentrated our efforts in that area to a large degree.

We have also, over a period of time, encouraged the private sector to be able

to build on infrastructure within our society to meet the needs of seniors and

our elderly people. We have encouraged this not only in the private sector but

also in the non-profit sector, in terms of asking groups and organizations to

assess the needs of seniors within their region and be able to adapt programs

and services that would meet their needs and the demands that they have at that

particular time.

Labrador communities, I guess like all communities in the Province,

traditionally have cared for seniors within their own families. In most cases

when seniors have decided that they can no longer maintain their own homes, or

are no longer in the physical condition to maintain their own homes, they have

certainly been welcomed by family members and cared for very well by family

members over many generations, and still to this day in a lot of cases. As the

economic climate of the Island of Newfoundland improved we saw more people going

into the workforce. A lot of women who primarily would stay at home and be the

caregivers for family started entering the workforce, therefore leaving a gap

there for seniors whereby they needed to have facilities that were independent,

that they could be on their own and provide for themselves with minimum support

mechanisms. As a result of that we saw personal care homes being built all

across the Province, in some cases by government, in some cases by the private

sector, by non-profit groups, by charitable donations, by grants from both

provincial and federal agencies that have allowed them to do this.

I guess we are reaching that same time frame within Labrador, where we see

the economy of Labrador improving. We see more and more employment being created

in communities, and as a result of it we see more and more of the primary

caregivers in the family, traditionally the women, entering the workforce and

therefore not being able to take on the same responsibilities as they would have

traditionally.

What we also have in Labrador are seniors who want to maintain a level of

independence within society and also be able to live in the communities or

within the region that they would have traditionally grown up in. As the

situation is right now, they are unable to do that. They are not being given the

option of having residence in a home or in a facility within their community or

even within the region of Labrador. That luxury has not been afforded to these

people. It is rather unfortunate, because we have cases where a lot of our

elderly are still in good health but are not able physically to maintain their

own homes, especially in the kind of climate that we have in Labrador, with the

long winters, the heavy snowfalls and so on. They are not able to maintain their

property and their homes in a manner that would be acceptable to them. Therefore

they look for alternatives. Personal care homes have been that alternative in

our society. It has been the alternative that has allowed the independence of

seniors to be able to still continue on with the routine of their lifestyle but

in an environment that provided them with the assistance that they needed.

That is what we want to offer the people of Labrador. One of the unfortunate

things that I have discovered in meeting with the Battle Harbour Assisted Living

Corporation and also with the Labrador West Seniors Building Committee - which

are two groups right now in Labrador who over the last two to three years have

put proposals forward to various government agencies in terms of looking for

financial investment into having facilities like this constructed within their

area - is that they have been met, I guess, not with a great deal of support.

That somewhat concerns me, because it seems that the general perception is that

there are enough personal care facilities within the Province to meet the need

on a provincial basis.

While that may be true, that isn't, geographically, distributed properly in

my mind. That is why I asked today that this exemption be made for Labrador.

Because as you know, we have eighty personal care homes within the Province,

fifty of them which are in the Conception Bay area and the St. John's area.

While there may be a surplus of beds or facilities within that demographic

region of the Province, it is certainly not true for Labrador. In Labrador

today, as I said, we have one personal care home that accommodates twenty

residents. Therefore, that is the only service that we can offer to these

people.

Today what I am asking is that the members of this House recognize the

extreme importance and the need that presently exist in Labrador with regard to

these facilities, and that they also encourage agencies such as HRDC, for

instance, which traditionally, years ago, would have invested grant money into

the construction of personal care homes within the Province. I won't cite

cases here, but I know a number of homes that received the financial assistance

that was necessary at the time from an agency like HRDC to be able to do this.

Also, from ACOA, they have a number of grant programs that are designed to meet

the social and economic needs of communities within our Province. Traditionally,

they would have invested money into those types of facilities, but today they

are more reluctant to invest simply because of the number of facilities that we

have around the Island of Newfoundland.

What we are saying is that the need does exist in Labrador. There isn't a

surplus of facilities in that particular region, but there is a desperate and

growing need for our seniors in all regions of Labrador. We would ask that this

House give its support to requesting agencies like this to invest in this type

of facility for Labrador. We don't think it is right that they renege on this

responsibility. Because it is not only the social aspect of serving seniors

within Labrador, but it is also the economics of it. I mean, this is a viable

economic alternative. These groups have prepared feasibility studies and

business plans that proved the economic viability, that it is an investment that

is worth making, that it is done not only for now but for the long-term in terms

of the regions and the areas that it serves.

So there is a certain amount of economic benefit that is derived from these

types of investments and these types of initiatives. I refer to the proposal

completed by the Battle Harbour Assisted Living Corporation. These are

individuals who have gone out and, through grants from charitable organizations

and through grants from other provincial and federal agencies, have completed

feasibility studies in the area, have completed business plans, have done needs

assessments, and have completely and utterly covered every single base that

needs to be covered in terms of proving the viability economically, and the need

socially, of doing a project like this.

In Labrador West, the same is true. The Labrador West Seniors Building

Committee up there - I met with a few of them on my last trip, Janice Barnes and

Dianne Gear and those people - for two years now have been putting proposals

into the system and not been getting the response that they want in terms of the

finances that they need to be able to implement these projects.

As people know, the demographics - and the member opposite would know, it is

his district - of communities of like Labrador West is changing. Seniors are

staying. They are making it their lifelong home. In order to stay in communities

like this and retire there they need to be able to have services available to

them. This is one of the services that they, as a community, want to provide.

The same thing is in my district, in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The

individuals there, people like Isabelle Rumbolt and Barbra Rumbolt and Bonnie

Rumbolt, all these people have committed so much time and energy into doing this

as volunteers within their region because they see the importance, the necessity

and the need that is not being met out there in society. I think we have a

responsibility to encourage this and to assist them in any way that we possibly

can in meeting the goals and objectives that they have, because they are looking

at the long-term care of their region.

I think that in a lot of cases too, in addition to considering the economics

of doing these types of initiatives and these types of investment in the

infrastructure, we also have to look at the social aspect of it. One thing is

the independence that is achieved by seniors, because you know the transition

cannot be an easy one, and it must impact tremendously upon the lives of people

who feel absolutely fine in their health but are physically unable to do for

themselves the way they always have. Can you imagine the trauma of moving from

your own home into another region of the Province, into an institution or

facility that quite often you are not even ready to go into? You have to be able

to afford people options, and that is all we are asking in Labrador.

We have long-term care homes, both in St. Anthony and in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, but they serve the long-term care needs of our region. We have a long-term

care facility in my district, in Forteau, which we are presently expanding this

year to meet the long-term and chronic care needs of the people in that region,

and in the district hopefully over a period of time, but we are talking about

two classifications of care for people in our society. We have to be able to

ensure that we can afford that type of care to all of them.

These past two years certainly have been an experience for me in dealing with

families in Labrador who went through the traumatizing experience of finding

placements in homes for their loved ones, and it has been very difficult. I can

refer to a number of cases where seniors have been living within the family

unit, and some of these are not always personal care but some of them require

long-term care. They also require long-term care as well, and in those cases it

has put continuous stress on the family unit and has impacted the way in which

other family members have been able to live their lives and carry out the normal

business that a family should.

So sometimes there is a lot of stress and a lot of strain being put on

families and we have to be able to give assurances to people. We have to try and

alleviate the burden as much as possible for people out there in our society. We

don't need to have our seniors wondering and worrying day after day where they

are going to go or where they are going to find the care that they need. I

think, Mr. Speaker, that in this day and age it is very unreasonable to expect

people -

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just a minute or two to clue up, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: It is unreasonable to expect that these people in Labrador

should have to move all over the Island portion of the Province in their older

age, in the last remaining years of their lives, to seek the kind and type of

care that they need. I certainly don't wish that for the people of my district

or the people of Labrador. That is why I come today to the House of Assembly to

ask the support of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, in encouraging

agencies and groups out there, within our Province and federally, to offer their

support financially to having facilities like this put in Labrador to service

the desperate need of our elderly people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to have some comments too on this particular resolution. I

certainly understand the needs, not only in Labrador but in the entire Province,

in terms of personal care homes. We have actually a mess in the personal care

industry in our Province. I am sure, and I hope, that the minister will get this

ironed out. Now there is an extra $1.3 million put into funding this year in

terms of subsidies, but they are operating at $925 a month, those subsidized

homes, and that is insufficient to be able to continue to operate. There are

dozens of homes around this Province which cannot survive on the amount of money

they are making. Twenty-five per cent of the subsidized beds have gone out of

existence in these last few years because people were at the brink, they couldn't

fill their beds and they couldn't operate their facilities. People out there

today are building new facilities, new personal care homes, privately funded

facilities, modern ones that are more enticing for people to go into. Older ones

that they want to expand and do things, they have to meet regulations: put in

fire sprinkler systems, fire safety doors - you name it - the standard things

that we should have in a home, but there is no help in the cost of those

particular areas. We cannot differentiate between the Burin Peninsula that needs

personal care homes, or Labrador that needs personal care homes, or any part of

our Province. We have to treat all parts of our Province equally in terms of

funding that is going to deal with personal care homes.

I will say that I am supportive of whatever basic policy - if there are going

to be federal-provincial initiatives that are going to help everybody - but it

should not be done until such a time as we have put our personal care industry

in this Province in order and we have addressed the underlying problems that are

there today. You just cannot continue it. We have to have a policy from this

department dealing with the industry before we pump money in anywhere. We cannot

support a resolution that is going to endorse - we are not going to do it; it

would be irresponsible to do it - such a resolution without having a policy that

is going to govern the existing state of personal care homes in our Province.

We have seen numerous reports, and I have read documents that go back into

the eighties, on long-term care - nursing homes, personal care homes, on home

care. We just received a document a little while ago on home care, and the

problems that are encountered there. I think we are only wasting our time here

to say that we should pick out an area in this Province and throw hundreds of

thousands of dollars into it, to put a home there. If Southern Labrador needs

it, it should be looked at as a priority, if it is the Burin Peninsula, if it is

the Southwest Coast, if it is Burgeo, or wherever it is. We cannot get into, in

this Legislature, endorsing single, segmented parts of this Province. We have to

treat everybody where the need exists.

This is what this resolution is intended to do, single out. While the need

could be there, I am (inaudible) opposed to it until such time as this minister

comes forth with a policy that is going to deal with the existing problems that

are there. Twenty-five per cent of the beds are gone out of existence in the

last four or five years. They cannot survive the cost there.

We don't support it - I will state that emphatically for the record - we

don't support it at this time. We want to see such time as an appropriate

policy comes forth from this department to deal with it. I have asked since the

Budget: What about the $1.3 million? How will that be spent? They said: We haven't

decided whether it is going to be to help the subsidies for those that are

existing, or in new subsidies.

I know that people who have built all those private homes out there,

unsubsidized bed, are saying: W we need money. We need to get subsidy for these.

We cannot operate them without it.

The personal care home are operating - history shows it. In the last four or

five years, 250 beds, approximately, gone out of existence because they can't

make ends meet because of vacancies, and other.... Modern ones are coming up and

squeezing them out. There is a problem, and the minister has to address this.

In addressing this problem - I know he is passing on some advice for closing

to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, but he has to address this

problem. It lies right on his lap of dealing with this problem here with

personal care homes. He has to do it. He wants a blank cheque here now - this

resolution does - to throw federal-provincial money out into an area without

looking at needs in other areas of the Province. He is the minister for

Newfoundland and Labrador. He has to look at all the needs on a universal basis,

and if the priorities end up higher in Labrador then that is where it should be.

If they end up higher down in Burgeo, or down in the Burin Peninsula, wherever

it is, in any part of the Province, that is where it should be.

There are certain areas in this Province that have a saturation of personal

care homes, and there are certain areas in this Province that are under served

in terms of personal care homes. We have to do an analysis; we have to look at a

departmental response, and we are lacking any concrete policy in dealing with

caring for people here in our Province.

I will add that personal care home are the cheapest form of care for people

in this Province. This Province spends only a few thousands dollars a year per

person to care for someone in a personal care home. If you had twenty-four hour

care in a home, it would cost $50,000 to $60,000 a year, even though there is a

cap that limits it to roughly $2,800 to $2,900. I think when you get your

contributions and so on, it is somewhere around $2,200 to $2,300.

Nursing homes cost in the vicinity - some cost as high as $5,000 per month

and more but there is a contribution by the individual and that brings it down,

the sum, to an average of a little over $4,000 per month, about $50,000 per

year. Others, one of the cheapest ones here, was at a cost of around $2,900 per

month, one of the cheapest here in the city. That is about some $30,000-some per

year. They are expensive.

Personal care homes provide an invaluable service. This government is getting

a bargain, and they are allowing them to go over the brink into bankruptcy or

into receivership, going out of business or selling out, because government has

sat back for the last number of years and done nothing about it. It is time to

do something. I welcome the member to bring back - we could very well possibly

support one after we have seen a policy directive on it.

We know that the need is there, and in particular too in Labrador. There are

parts of Labrador, especially the Labrador City area, for example, that does not

have an aging population, does not have a high per cent of older population, and

there are other parts that have a need there. I don't deny the need is there

and something needs to be done to address the need, but it has to be done under

a policy that applies all over the Province and it has to be done, I think, very

quickly. We haven't been getting a response.

I have been calling for this for the last number of years. My colleague for

Conception Bay South has been addressing this topic a number of times here in

this House. People have sat in the galleries who are operating those personal

care homes. I have met with people under the association; I have attended their

AGM.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I said no. I can't support it, not that I am opposed

to the intent of the resolution - I am not prepared for that - but until such a

time as this minister comes forward with a policy to address personal care

homes. We are lacking vastly. We just can't single out and toss things out

here and there and say we are going to support something because there is no

rationale to it. I am not denying the need. In fact, I am sympathetic to the

need, to be honest with you. I am very sympathetic to a need there, but I am not

sympathetic enough to say - until we get the mess cleared up on personal care

homes - that we should endorse throwing public money into private personal care

homes until the problem is resolved here on a universal basis.

I am a strong supporter of private enterprise, a big believer in it. I

started off in a private business, right from scratch, with nothing but a loan

from a bank. I spent over twenty years in it, so I know a small amount about

private business. I am no expert on it but I do know a small amount about

private business and the cost of starting and operating a business. I do know a

lot of people in the personal home care business and I have talked with them,

people in non-subsidized ones, in subsidized ones. I have met with numerous

ones, as I have indicated. I have attended AGMs. I have talked to people. I have

raised this issue in the House many times and, as I said, my colleague has, and

we haven't had any changes or any movement.

To be honest with you, I think that the new minister will move and do

something on personal care homes. I am expecting something will happen in the

next while. I wouldn't mind seeing this resolution coming back again. Then we

may be able to render a different decision at that time, when we see what is in

the cards; but at this point, as I stated, I am not going to bother to amend it,

to be honest with you. I don't think it will serve a purpose there because to

amend it until such time as we have the policy, I don't see the relevance of

that. I doubt if we are going to get support enough to support it anyway. I won't

waste the time of the House to do that.

I am looking forward to something happening. It hasn't happened since

Budget day. We are back in budget now back in March, six weeks ago, and we haven't

had a response. I did call your deputy minister just to find out how it was

going to be versed, and after that I called him to see what has happened to the

$1.3 million. Has a decision been made? It hadn't. I haven't called since,

that was just a month ago, and I am sure still no decision has been made. I did

indicate to her, when I spoke to her, I say to the minister, that I think you

should consult all the stakeholders out there. There is an association that was

officially in place; it has very few members. There is a new association that

has the bulk of the members now, and they have taken over because of whatever

reason. Whether it was lack of activity or whatever has happened there, they

formed active - I must say, I met with them. I met with just about everybody

over the last few years in this industry and I know a little bit about it, but

it is privately run homes, and until we have a clear, distinct policy, I think

it would be irresponsible for the minister and this government to endorse this

policy, to endorse this resolution here in the absence of policy to deal with.

It is just not a responsible thing to do.

It is nice to support a particular area of the Province that has a need, and

there are other parts of this Province that have a need. I think the resolution

probably should have been Newfoundland and Labrador, to be honest with you. I

would not want to stand up and say one for Ferryland or one for the South Coast.

I think it should be a universal one, Newfoundland and Labrador, but I still

would not support it even if it was Newfoundland and Labrador because we do not

have a direction there.

I think the minister is going to come forward - I believe they are going to

come forward - with some direction on this and maybe it will get defeated,

brought back here this fall when we see what the policy is, what government is

going to do with those personal care homes; because anybody who is not serving

an area that has these may not fully understand what is happening. I will just

briefly mention a couple of things about it. Some of these people who started

this industry thirty years ago went out and had those homes; they were

subsidized beds. Many of them were in that business thirty years. They are at

wit's end. They have an overdraft at the bank. They cannot go on, they cannot

expand, they cannot renovate, and in certain conditions there are big costs.

They have to fund that out of their pocket when they are getting $915 a month to

feed, to house, to pay for a building, to pay for a staff and look after people.

How many people can afford to look after people and all their needs for $900 a

month?

Accountants have shown that it is considerably underfunded. I think

accountants have shown that it should be what? I will ask my colleague from

Conception Bay South. I think $1,300 and something, was it, was a figure that

was used?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It should be. So that is basically one there.

We have a funding problem with current ones. There is a problem with current

ones in funding of that, and certainly we have to address that. I am concerned

about it.

I am not going to waste any more time on this issue, but I just want to state

emphatically that I am sympathetic in getting the problems resolved with seniors

in our Province. They are not getting resolved to my satisfaction. Where there

is an absence of government policy and direction in that, we have to see

something before we throw money at the problem, and public money, because now

many private ones have sprung up all over this Province. They have sprung up in

many parts of this Province.

My district and outside, everywhere, there are unsubsidized beds out there.

They have gone up on their on initiatives, their own dollars and so on, and we

have to be very careful how we tread because we do not want to be committing

public money in the absence of direct policy that is going to help these people

in the long term.

On that basis, I oppose that and certainly hope that the minister will move

expeditiously to resolve the overall problem with personal care homes in our

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion put forward by my colleague from

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in her resolution for support for personal care

units in Labrador.

I heard the critic of health, the Opposition member, speak on - unless it was

a resolution for the Province; but in many case, as we have found out, many

times there has been infrastructure money put in where facilities have been

built in certain parts of the Province and certainly, because of where we live,

many times not getting a fair shake, that when Coastal Labrador has applied for

such a facility we are told that funding is no longer in place. We in Coastal

Labrador certainly take pride in our seniors and believe that they have a right

to a way of life, to personal home care, that a lot of seniors in other parts of

the Province have taken for granted for quite some years.

Without the help of the federal and provincial governments, because of the

high cost of living, the cost of diesel power, the cost of home heating fuel,

Coastal Labrador, my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in her riding

and in my riding are at a big disadvantage. Certainly when people go out there

and have to borrow a large amount of money and pay back three and four different

agencies, by the time they pay back their creditors they find they do not have

enough money to run a personal care home in Coastal Labrador.

My mom is eighty-two years old. She lives in good health at the present time

in the community of Labrador, a woman who became a widow at a very early age and

raised her family. When the day comes that my mom needs health care or a place

to go, a personal home care, I believe that she should have that opportunity.

Not that my family won't look after her, but there are many senior citizens in

Coastal Labrador that do not have the opportunity.

language. Yet they are taken and sent to different parts of the Island, or to

Goose Bay, away from a way of life that they have had, and traditional foods.

The families who live on a very small income cannot afford the expensive airfare

to fly to Goose Bay or to the Island to see their people. I take the opportunity

to visit seniors from Coastal Labrador who are in personal home care facilities

here on the Island. One of the first things they talk of is home, of having to

live in a place where they are complete strangers, with a different way of life.

I fully support the resolution put forward by my colleague as it pertains to

personal care facilities in Labrador. Certainly, I can say that without the

cooperation and assistance of both the provincial and federal government these

facilities will never become a reality. What is far more important, and probably

a sadder situation, is that the seniors in Coastal Labrador will never enjoy the

benefits that most seniors in other parts of this Province have.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before that anyone who goes on in great length

certainly doesn't score high in my books. Again, I just want to say that I

fully support the resolution put forward by my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair, because I know all too well of the seniors who live in isolation and

isolated communities. I fully support her resolution.

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

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

I certainly support the concept of the resolution, but as I go through my

comments on the resolution itself I would beg to differ on some of the ways that

maybe things should be done.

I would like to start off just by talking about our history. In the past we

didn't really have the ability, or the necessity in some cases for personal

care homes, because families provided it. Unlike the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair, I don't really believe that today people are not able to provide

that many times to their parents because of the economics of our area where job

opportunities are opening up. I think it is driven more by necessity, by the

high cost of mortgages, by the high cost of education and the cost of living

increases that people, out of necessity, have to go to work. Not as an option

that they choose many times for both spouses to be working outside the home, but

in order to meet the day-to-day obligations that they have. As parents, they are

forced to work outside their homes in order to provide for their own well-being

and that of their children.

The dynamics of all Labrador are changing. In Labrador West it has certainly

changed dramatically over the past few years. There was a time when people

looked at Labrador West as being the rich area of the Province that did not rely

upon government funding for anything. The companies that were in the area

provided everything that was required and everything that was needed whenever

the occasion arose. That today is not the case. The companies have shunned their

responsibilities in many aspects of the community, and now the people with the

lack of opportunity for employment in the area, with the high unemployment rate,

people are dependent upon government to step in and alleviate certain

conditions, the same as they do in any other part of the Province. So things are

changing.

As time goes by, and as the community of Labrador West ages, then the people

in the community age as well. What is happening in many cases today is that at

one time, not too long ago, as people retired it was automatic that they left

the area and moved elsewhere, many times returning to the Island portion of the

Province or to Nova Scotia, or to Europe where a lot of people originated from

as well. I would say that today that is not the case. Indeed many people are

retiring and staying in the area.

I was at two retirement parties in the last six months just from the Iron Ore

Company of Canada alone. In October there were 143 retirees, of whom

approximately over one hundred will remain in the area. Friday night past I was

at another retirement party where seventy-two retired, and the majority of them

intend to remain in the area. That is how we are evolving as a community, and as

we evolve as a community in this sense we need the things that other communities

need as well.

I agree with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the member from

the North Coast that we have to make exceptions for Labrador because many times

in the past Labrador has not received its fair share of any of the things that

are provided by government. The cases that we can use to point that out are

endless. I think without an exception being made for Labrador we will always be

doomed not to receive our fair share. With the numbers that were pointed out by

the member who brought this resolution forward, out of a total of sixty personal

health care facilities in the Province and one of those being in Labrador, I

think that speaks well to the point that we are neglected in this area.

Something has to be done, a special allocation has to be made, to rectify the

differences that have occurred over the years.

For most people - I know in Labrador West, for example - when they are in a

situation where they need personal care then many times that means getting

admitted to the hospital and spending the remainder of your days in the hospital

on the geriatric ward. That, I am sure you and all members of this House will

agree, is certainly not the proper way, not the respectful way or the desirable

way that most seniors would like to end out their final days after contributing

their entire lives to improving the society that we live in.

There are cases with home care in this Province - I know of one case where a

couple from Gander, married over fifty years with no children, where the wife

ended up in one institution and the husband ended up in another, and that is

where they remained until their death. That is totally unacceptable in this day

and age, for a couple to be married over fifty years with no children to look

after them to end up in different institutions, and that is where they finally

exhausted their last days on earth. That is a deplorable condition.

I know that in the group that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair

talked about in Labrador West, the seniors' group there, that Rick Hiscock,

Margie Butt, Joan Stamp and others have put a tremendous amount of work into,

they have identified the need. They have identified what is needed. They have

identified a process of how it should be done. They did a survey in the area, a

very detailed survey, and they know what is required, but the funding is the

problem in order to make it happen. Funding has to be made available in order

for things like this to take place, to meet the needs of the residents of the

area.

I would also like to say that I am not against private enterprise, by no

stretch of the imagination, but I do believe sincerely that government has a

role in providing certain things in our society. I think that personal care

homes should not be left to the whims of a bottom line profit margin. I don't

believe that best suits the needs of the people who require home care in this

Province. I think it is a responsibility of government to be the driving engine

towards making these things happen. A person should not have to rely upon

home-care-for-profit in order to have their needs taken care of, because when

that happens it is business as usual and the bottom line always dictates what

happens within the operation. That is not to say that there are not some good

private care homes being run, but I think when that does happen there has to be

very strict regulations and those regulations have to be enforced strictly.

When we talk about going back again to the exceptions being made for

Labrador, I certainly support that and I certainly support any initiative by any

agency, by any government, federal, provincial, municipal or whatever, that can

make this happen. Because the need is there and it is going to get greater. The

need is going to increase as time goes by. Like I said, in Labrador West in

particular I can see the need increasing substantially,

whereas one time, not

too many years ago, there was absolutely no need whatsoever. That need now is

growing increasingly year after year. I'm sure that in the coastal areas of

Labrador, in Goose Bay, and all over in general, where there is one home care

facility, personal care facility in the region, it does not adequately meet the

needs of the residents of Labrador.

It is not the same. If you look at it from a geographical point of view much

of Labrador, at the present time, is geographically, physically, separated from

the other regions. It is not like if you divide up the Province. With the

fifty-nine that are located on the Island, I am sure that there are not too many

geographical regions that do not have a personal care home of one form or

another.

Whereas one for Labrador is certainly not adequate and it certainly

needs to be addressed.

I support the resolution as presented by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair, and I look forward to exciting changes being brought in by the

minister as well that will better address the concerns of people who require

home care in the Province and personal care. We look forward to that happening.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to say I thank the member

for bringing forward this resolution and I certainly support it wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

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

If the member speaks now she ends debate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with great interest to the responses to the resolution. First of

all, I would like to thank the words from my colleague for Torngat Mountains and

his support in this.

I stand here and, to a certain degree, I take offence to the view and

perspective of the member opposite, the critic for health. Because I think it is

wrong that people in Labrador should have to wait - in terms of addressing the

need of personal care for its residents - until all facets of health care and

residential care for seniors have been addressed in this Province. That is the

neanderthal perspective, I guess, that people in Labrador have had to endure for

many generations. I sit here today and take great exception to having it pointed

out to me once again in this House of Assembly.

My grandfather, a man who was illiterate, but a great fisherman who fished in

Labrador all his life, in his eighties had to leave because he required personal

care. From that day until he died, just this past year at the age of

ninety-four, he lived in three different personal care homes around this

Province. The last home he was in was not a personal care home, it was actually

an institution.

It was very difficult for us as a family because we could not get in our cars

and drive to see him on Sunday afternoons as most people in this Province have

the luxury to be able to do. We could not visit him on Christmas Day, or at

Easter, or on his birthday, because in many cases this required large sums of

money that family members did not always have available to them to be able to

share in the last years of his life.

This is an issue that is of great importance to people in Labrador. It is

important because they, too, care for their elderly, their seniors, their

parents and their grandparents. It is about ensuring that they also have the

options of personal care available to them as do other people in this Province.

I cited my case in my family with my grandparents, and I am not an exception.

This has been the case with many families. I have seen it in my friends, in my

neighbors and in my constituents, the great deal of hardship that they

experience, because when their elderly people go out to personal care homes in

other areas of the Province in lots of cases it is the last that they ever see

of them. That is a very unfortunate reality to be faced with.

The critic for health, the member opposite, indicates there are problems that

the minister and this government should address with regard to senior care. I

think we realize that and we have addressed and are continuing to address a

number of the issues that face seniors within this Province, but the resolution

that I brought forward today is to service a group of people within this

Province who are in desperate need of services.

If you were to go out and ask for a policy, as the people opposite are

asking, they are asking that anybody in this Province be able to access funding

through government agencies and departments to build personal care homes.

Mr. Speaker, I think that would be met with a lot of opposition from the

general public; because it was only a year ago, on the West Coast of

Newfoundland, in the Corner Brook area, when government agencies gave out

funding to people - private companies - to build personal care homes. Other

homes in that area were very upset, because they had vacancies that they were

trying to fill. They did not want someone giving out government money to compete

with them and their vacant beds which they were trying to fill. That is a whole

different ball game.

What the members opposite are proposing is that we invest in all homes, that

we make it more competitive, that those people who are out there in this

Province with a surplus of beds today would have even more surplus. What we are

asking is that Labrador be looked at for the need that exists there today, and

be able to address that need as it is.

I am very disappointed with the perspective that has been taken, because a

group that indicates they want to solve problems of seniors in this Province -

well, one place they can start is by trying to solve the problems of seniors in

Labrador.

MR. TULK: Who is that?

MS JONES: The members opposite.

MR. TULK: Who are the members opposite?

MS JONES: The critic for health.

MR. TULK: The Tory caucus.

MS JONES: The Tory caucus is not supporting this resolution, and I think

it is a very Neanderthal approach to how things are being done. It is the way

that Labrador has been treated historically, and I can't believe that these

people would stand here today, look me in the face and endorse that once again

over and over, because the people of Labrador are tired of it. They come here

today to ask the members of this House to give their support, to offer them

their support in trying to meet a desperate need in their communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have to accept the fact that the aging of our

seniors is not an issue that will disappear. It is not going to disappear in

Labrador, but it is one that has a changing need and alternative demands, and

changing geographics, which is what we are experiencing today. This is the case

in Labrador.

I can only conclude by saying that I would like to ask every member in this

House to stand in support of the seniors of Labrador, to support this

resolution, recognizing the tremendous stress and strain that families and

elderly people have placed on them in all regions of Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those opposed, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion, the ayes have it.

MR. TULK: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon.

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

Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon.

the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; the hon. the Minister of

Finance; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the

President of Treasury Board; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Education;

the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister

of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Mr. Wiseman; Mr.

Andersen; Mr. Reid; Ms. Jones; Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK : Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr.

Fitzgerald; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. French.

Mr. Speaker, there are twenty ayes and seven nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion passed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn the House, because you do

adjourn it today, I just want to inform hon. members that we will be starting at

second reading of Bill 5 which, on today's Order Paper, is Order 4. We will

just go down through the Orders as we come to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, we will be back at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, the House does now stand adjourned

until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.