Vol. XLIII No. 33 May 27, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to take the opportunity to welcome to the galleries today twenty-five A.B.E. from the Skill for Success School. They are accompanied by their instructor, Ann Buckle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today Delores Flynn from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living, along with Mary Ennis from the Coalition for Persons with Disabilities; and Mary Reid, Independent Living Resource Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Information Technology Human Resource Development Strategy Committee today released its final report entitled: Information Technology - Closing the Human Resources Gap in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The committee that reported on this important issue, Mr. Speaker, is a partnership of interested parties including Operation ONLINE Inc, Human Resources Development Canada, the Newfoundland and Labrador Alliance of Technical Industries, the Canadian Information Processing Committee, industry and educational stakeholders, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The committee was established to address changes in the IT sector, particularly as they relate to the human resource issues and requirements.

Mr. Speaker, the report provides us with valuable information that enables us to make changes now that will benefit our people in the future. It also provides us with insight on where our Province is today in terms of the IT growth. We have 230 IT firms operating in the Province today, employing approximately 6,000 of our people in the information technology sector in our Province. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that this represents a 30 per cent increase over the past year.

This study highlights the need for us to adapt to the rapid changes in the information technology sector, particularly with the high demand for, and shortage of, qualified and experienced workers.

What the study found, Mr. Speaker, was that there is a significant gap between the skills possessed by entry-level employees in the IT sector and those desired by IT employers. A second, and equally important find, as my colleagues will appreciate, is the need for experienced employees and a need to improve specific skills and knowledge areas.

Mr. Speaker, we take these findings seriously and have taken steps to close the technology gap this study has determined. The first step is the introduction of an industry development strategy put forth by Operation ONLINE.

Mr. Speaker, my department is committed to working with Operation ONLINE, the Department of Education, industry and the other stakeholders, to meet the challenges in the growing IT sector. This morning my colleague, the Minister of Education, announced that we have formed a new Provincial Education and Training Advisory Committee for reviewing existing and new Information Technology programs offered by training institutes.

These are steps, Mr. Speaker, that we believe will help us to effectively develop the information technology sector in our Province and assist in our efforts to diversify our economy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This is another good news statement, Mr. Speaker. Information technology is perhaps the area that we have to start looking toward, as did Ireland. We see what happened with the Irish economy, what happened in Ireland, and the low unemployment rate they have, the booming economy.

We need that here. Our geographic location is not that much different than that of Ireland, Mr. Speaker. We need to start looking at progressive ways of employing our people here, keeping people from moving out of the Province, eliminating the out-migration from this Province. Perhaps if we were to look at investing $800,000 or a million dollars into bringing people back to this Province with the proper skills to put into these positions and start expanding on this sector to strengthen our economy, perhaps that would be money well spent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a great supporter of information technology and the IT industry but, as often is the case, there is a great deal of difference between the rhetoric and the reality. Here we are promoting the IT sector with 6,000 employees, and yet the government cannot keep a web site up to date and is still advertising on its web site for tourism, events that took place last summer.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is really a need. There is really a need for this committee to make a good report, and hopefully we will have Operation ONLINE help to identify the IT programs that the private sector is offering and advertising broadly (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - as good quality or poor quality, because I think there is a lot of confusion in the whole scene.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Not paid for by the people, Mr. Premier, I would say.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada, we are pleased to play host to the Third National Forum on Education which is being held here in St. John's at the Delta Hotel beginning tomorrow and running until Saturday. This National Forum will consist of approximately 350 participants, with representatives from government and national non-governmental organizations. Also in attendance will be the ministers of education and advanced education from every jurisdiction across the country.

Mr. Speaker, this forum is a great opportunity for us, as education partners, to come together and build on a sense of community, to develop a common understanding on specific issues in relation to education, and to develop a sense of shared responsibility in addressing those issues. The theme for this year's event is `Education and Life-Transitions' where the focus will be on the school system, including preschool; school to work and work to school; and the changing labour market environment. This National Forum will also be an opportunity for the Council of Ministers of Education to present and discuss its national agenda and for all partners to comment on that agenda.

The keynote speaker for the event is Mr. Jacques Delors, former President of the European Union, and Chair of UNESCO International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members on the government side of the House, I would like to welcome all delegates to the National Forum on Education and to encourage them to stay on for a few days, if possible, and experience the full range of Newfoundland and Labrador warmth and hospitality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

On behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, we too want to welcome all of the delegates attending the Third National Forum on Education. I am sure it is a privilege for the minister to be the host, and we certainly encourage any program which offers the opportunities for educators across this country to come to Newfoundland and share with us their expertise, and for us in turn to be able to share knowledge of our Province and offer them our hospitality.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that we are going to be including some discussions on the preschool system. This is an area of concern to many educators, and in terms of intervention and prevention and early education, theorists are telling us (inaudible) one area where we should be concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: I take the opportunity again to say to the Minister that this is good news and we welcome it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in welcoming the delegation to the convention and hope that it is an opportunity for the development of a national consensus on some of the issues that are of great importance, particularly to students today in the area of paying for post-secondary education, on the student loans issue and the student debt. The new attempt by the national government to prevent the students from declaring bankruptcy if they have overextended themselves, is a good opportunity, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - to promote that kind of understanding that is necessary today.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, having a job is an important part of participating and contributing fully to society. Yet people with disabilities often face barriers that keep them from finding work. In Newfoundland and Labrador, only about one-quarter of people living with a disability are employed.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce a program that will respond to this growing concern and need in our Province. The Employability Assistance for People With Disabilities initiative is a five-year $41 million agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador which replaces the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the federal, provincial and territorial governments started working together early in 1997 to explore ways to improve the Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons Program. This had been in place for thirty-five years. In October 1997, Ministers responsible for Social Services approved a Multilateral Framework for Employability Assistance.

This program, known as EAPD, will help those with a disability acquire the skills, experience and supports necessary to successfully enter or remain in the workforce. Active programs in employment counselling and assessment, employment planning, pre-employment training, post-secondary education, skills training, assistive aids and other workplace supports will help ensure that those in our Province living with a disability have access to job opportunities and training.

Mr. Speaker, the EAPD initiative is a financial arrangement between the federal and provincial governments. Through the Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Bilateral Agreement, the Government of Canada will contribute 50 per cent of the cost, up to $4.1 million annually, of eligible provincial programs and services.

Mr. Speaker, a three-year transition program will allow our Province the time needed to adjust and re-evaluate programs to reflect the new employability focus, while avoiding disruptions in current client service. Mr. Speaker, the goal of this agreement is to help develop focused programs and services that are effective in helping people with disabilities prepare for, find and maintain employment.

EAPD demonstrates the commitment of all governments to work in partnership to renew and enhance Canada's social programs. I feel strongly that the new Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities program will go a long way in meeting the employment needs and concerns of those living with disabilities in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement. I am extremely pleased with this announcement of Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities. Anything that will enhance the life of persons with disabilities is to be applauded, and on the surface this program appears to be a tremendous move in the right direction.

I particularly like the three-year transition period which will allow time to evaluate the programs and also will avoid disruptions to the clients. I like the part about reporting annually, which allows for accountability. This is always a good thing. I await further details before making a final judgment. I say to the minister, I can't wait for tomorrow's ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that despite changes in the federal government's attitude towards social programs that this type of program will be continuing for a further five years. I didn't notice anything in the statement indicating the involvement of people with disabilities in the design of this program, and I hope that will become the feature of its implementation at a very early date. Because as we see, sometimes programs that are designed to assist people, in fact, face stringent barriers to implementation, including restrictive provincial regulations, which have been recently identified by women attempting to get an education.

So, I hope that people will be consulted, Mr. Speaker, in the implementation of this very important and valuable program.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform hon. members that government plans to hold a series of public consultation meetings on the Province's Green Paper on Adoption Policy and Law. I invite interested individuals and community representatives to make their views known by participating in one of the six consultation meetings which will be taking place across the Province in May and June.

Mr. Speaker, government and the people of this Province are concerned about the current adoption system. Our present legislation governing adoption is nearly fifty years old and, clearly, it needs to be revisited in order to meet today's needs.

Mr. Speaker, the Green Paper on Adoption Policy and Law was released in the House of Assembly last February by the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. It was developed by an Adoption Advisory Committee which was appointed to identify and discuss issues related to the adoption process in this Province. In preparing this document, the Committee invited birth parents, adoptees, adoptive parents and professionals with adoption experience to comment on issues related to adoption. Members of the Committee also explored relevant literature and looked at adoption reform taking place in other jurisdictions.

Interested individuals have had a chance to review the Green paper and today, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the public for their input on this document to help shape the Province's adoption policies and practices of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members may wish to note some of the issues which will be on the table for public comment and discussion: Adoption of an older child; adoption by a step-parent or relative; direct placement of a child in a home chosen by the birth mother; private adoption agencies and other delivery options; open elements in adoption; and the disclosure of adoption records.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of these consultation meetings cannot be overstated. Government places great value on the opinions of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we need to hear their input in order to proceed with change. This is a real opportunity for those who are directly affected by this legislation to voice their concerns and to offer suggestions as to how government can improve the system for the future.

I ask hon. members to join me in encouraging those who have an interest in this subject to make their views known during the consultation commitment. Government is committed to improving adoption practices for everyone involved and we welcome the views of the people throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, I say to the minister, that we are given an opportunity for public input. We, all along, have advocated that we need to involve professionals, we need to involve people directly affected in dealing with what we are going to do and in particular with children who need and who want the opportunity to be adopted, regardless of the role or the involvement.

This is an opportunity, I say to the minister, as we have said before on occasion - and we have supported a full consultative input by the general public, and we certainly hope on the conclusion, minister, you will seriously consider the input by the public.

I have had a few calls, I might add, not several. I have had a couple I can recall recently on this issue and I have indicated to them, and I have said publicly, that I feel the entire public should be involved. It is an issue that involves everybody. I certainly look forward to the public input and certainly, in its finality, what move the department makes on this particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear that this process is going forward. Clearly, after fifty years attitudes on the whole issue of adoption and the regulations associated with it are due for a change. Attitudes have changed and the law must change along with it. There are some issues that need very careful consideration, but I think we should get on with these discussions. Consultation has been going on for some years now and it is time to start bringing the matter to a head.

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

MR. A. REID: A little bit of good news.

I am standing, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters. I met with them yesterday and I promised them I would do this. This is a bit of good news I would like to have a chance to announce.

In conjunction with the Minister of Education, I am pleased to advise the House that the nationally recognized program, Learn Not to Burn, is now part of the curriculum in 56 per cent of our schools in the Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters has been working diligently with the Department of Education and the Office of the Fire Commissioner to ensure the success of this program, which has been ongoing now for a year.

Our objective is to achieve full implementation by the end of the 1998-99 school year. The Burin and Clarenville - Bonavista South School Districts have already achieved 100 per cent implementation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: And others are nearing that. In fact, the Avalon East one is getting up there as well.

The Learn Not to Burn Program reaches school aged children - Kindergarten to Grade III - with vital life safety information. It stresses the teaching of positive, practical fire prevention behaviour.

This is significant when you consider that 484 fire deaths occurred in our Province over the last twenty-five years; 154 of those were children. Public education of school age children through the Learn Not to Burn program saves lives and reduces property loss from fires.

These life safety skills remain with children because it has already been proven that children remember. As of July 1997 there have been forty-seven lives saved across Canada due to the lessons learned from this particular program including, I am very pleased to say, three kids saved because of this program in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to first, of course, thank the minister today for providing me with a copy of his statement. Indeed, Minister, it is good news. If I really didn't know the difference I would be almost expecting the Premier later on today to go to Government House and actually call an election.

Seriously, Mr. Minister, this is certainly good news. I've been involved with a volunteer fire department in my area. We have two over the years. Any time there is a fire prevention week or whatever -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I would say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, this is not a foolish thing. You may think it is, but this is serious. It is too bad you can't treat it as a serious thing. This is a very serious issue. It helps children. If you have small children, or your children ever did this in a school and they came home from school - I know my daughter, when she was at a very young age, came home, and they did a fire safety thing in their school and that was practised in our house.

I say to the minister, congratulations on this. When it gets into all our schools and all of our young children can take advantage of it, I think that we in this Province will certainly see the advantages of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It could be a very important addition to the web site, this kind of information. I think this statement speaks for itself. It's quite important to recognize the contribution of our fire-fighters and fire chiefs, not only in the fighting of fires but also in the prevention side of it. What could be more important than educating our children about these issues? They can, as the Member for Conception Bay South said, come home from school and tell the parents what they are doing wrong in the area of fire safety, and that can only be a positive thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, does she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too want to congratulate the fire-fighters and fire departments around the Province for the efforts they are making in providing safety to our communities and educating our children on preventative methods and how to deal with fires within their own homes.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize the volunteer efforts of a lot of these people, because they are volunteers, and they have made a great deal of effort in providing this service to communities.

I have had the opportunity over the last few years to go into schools and look at what kids have done in the Learn Not to Burn program. Mr. Speaker, the concept they have, and the level of information they have been able to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: - portray to the public, has been outstanding.

Thank you.

 

Oral Questions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Education. Several weeks ago we became aware that Memorial University's early offers of a scholarship program would preclude many students from small schools from being eligible, due to the fact that their course offerings and credits accumulated by the end of Level II would be less than the prerequisites required.

I'm wondering if the minister, who has had time now to review this, has had a chance to discuss it with Memorial University. What steps is he taking to ensure that all the students in Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of whether they are from a large school or from a small school, will have equal access to the University's offerings of early scholarship programs?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been assured by the University that every student in every high school in Newfoundland and Labrador does have access to that program.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

In my discussions with the University, I am told they will be doing a study to see how many students are negatively impacted, and that this is a matter that will be decided by the university senate. I wanted to ask the minister: Since only the senate is able to change the policy, when does he anticipate the senate will have a recommendation from the officials at the university, and when can we expect to have a definitive decision? Because until that is made, the parents of Newfoundland and Labrador will still have anxiety about this.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been given assurances by the university, regardless of what their internal processes are, that the students will not be negatively or adversely impacted.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fire the senate. Fire the senate.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this program is pretty significant to many of the parents. As the minister knows, the last year there were about 305 scholarships awarded, varying from $2,000 to $25,000. This is a big issue for many parents. We have had calls from parents from other parts of the Province, mostly from rural Newfoundland. In one district, for example, in eight of the eleven schools, their students would not be eligible.

The parents are asking that the minister use his authority to tell the university they want a definite statement, because already there have been overtures made to many schools by other universities seeking to attract the youngest and brightest of our students.

I want again to ask the minister if he would, today, ask the university to issue a statement definitively clarifying this matter for all parents of the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might reference the hon. member to a letter in today's Letters to the Editor in The Evening Telegram from Mr. Carson Leonard, Director of Scholarships and Awards at Memorial University where he assures anyone who reads The Evening Telegram, and he has assured others, that there will not be a problem.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Leonard also says that only the university senate is able to change the policy. He has not given a date as to when that policy will be changed. Until the senate changes the policy, it does not become official policy of the university.

I ask the minister: Will he again discuss the matter with Mr. Leonard to say when there can be a definite decision made that is binding on the university, and becomes official policy as a statement by the university senate, rather than a statement by Mr. Leonard?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this gets to the nub of the matter again. The hon. member often raises issues like this one which are serious, and suggests in the Legislature that there is something I can do about it, or something that we should do about it here.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is a university in the Province that has its own Board of Regents which makes decisions for the university. The government funds the university, $100 million a year. There is also a senate that is referenced in university that has certain decision-making powers and authorities within the university. It does not matter what the hon. member says, Mr. Speaker, or what I might say, these people make the decisions.

All I have said, is that I have been given every assurance by the representatives of the university that they will not see students adversely impacted, and that there will be fair treatment, regardless of which community and which school they attend, when it comes to applying for scholarships at Memorial.

Unless and until, Mr. Speaker, we want to disband the Board of Regents, disband the senate at the university and take the decisions here in this Legislature, there is really no point to the question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Your department funds $2,000, and even more in many cases, to care for people who need Level I care, when that care is provided in their home or in a nursing home, and a home for special care only costs this government a few hundred dollars a month for a subsidised bed, for the same Level I care people.

The minister is always talking about client focused care, and I ask the minister: Why are you discriminating against homes for special care by forcing them to provide the same level of care for a fraction of what you are giving to people who give care in nursing homes or within their own homes? I ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Yesterday, before we left this House, notice was given, by consultation with the Opposition House Leader, that today we would be debating Motion No. 10 which is a Private Members' -

AN HON. MEMBER: So what!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, so you do not care about the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - Resolution put forward by the Member for Conception Bay South, on personal care homes and so on in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I would refer Your Honour to a rule in Beauchesne that is known as the Rule of Anticipation, which clearly says that anything that is set down on the Order Paper to be debated today is not in order for Question Period.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, or that so-called point of order: The question on the Order Paper today deals specifically with increasing funding to homes for special care, personal care homes.

I have not asked that question, and I have questions not related to that specific part that I want to ask in this House today, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for that right.

Personal care home operators came in from around this Province today on the Private Members' Resolution. They asked the minister if they would schedule (inaudible) for you to attend and you would not gear your schedule to be able to attend. You have ignored them and they have a right to be heard in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind hon. members that it has been ruled quite often in this House, and quite recently, that if there is a motion on the Order Paper to deal with business, then that issue should not be raised during Question Period, and I rule the hon. member's questions out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask a question to the minister, not on the resolution that is there today, but on another aspect that is not covered in the resolution today.

Uncontrolled licensing of new homes, and a lack of government action on unlimited homes, have contributed to a high vacancy rate in homes for special care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen obviously has to understand that debate on this resolution covers every topic or indeed may be meant to cover every topic. The resolution is put forward to discuss personal care homes in their broadest sense. While he might try to skate around Your Honour's ruling all he likes, the truth of the matter is that he is anticipating a debate which -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) issue.

MR. TULK: No, no. He is anticipating a debate which will be broad ranging and could possibly cover everything that is under personal care.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentlemen, that the reason for that rule is to inform members, and to inform all of us, that indeed we can have a wide range in debate on any subject that is on the Order Paper. That is the purpose of putting it there, that we do not repeat and repeat and that we do not try to anticipate what somebody else is going to say in debate. It is called the Rule of Anticipation, and he must abide by it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The Private Member's Resolution today submitted by my colleague from Conception Bay South, specifically urges the government to grant an appropriate increase for personal care homes.

I want to deal with other than increases, other issues out there, vacancy rates and licensing of homes. It is a legitimate question that is not covered in the Private Members' Resolution on this Order Paper today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, looking at the WHEREASES and the THEREFORES in the Resolution, any question relating to this topic should not be raised at this point in time. It should be raised elsewhere when the debate is continued.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask leave to ask some questions of concern to people in homes for special care in this Province. I ask leave of this House to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TULK: Look, the chair has ruled, and the chair has rightly ruled. What the hon. gentlemen is doing - let us be honest and fair here - what the hon. gentlemen is doing -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. TULK: - is grandstanding and trying to play to the gallery. He has to abide by the rules of this House, otherwise it becomes a beer pit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Is the hon. member raising a point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask to raise a point of order or make a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the right of this House to request leave. It has been done on statements here today. It is always there. I just asked: Will government give leave to ask those questions? If not, I will sit down. If they will, then I will continue to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not a point of order. The hon. the member has asked for leave and no leave was granted.

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. As the minister is well aware, and in fact he has stated on many occasions, there is overcapacity in the fish processing industry in this Province. You, Minister, also have said that the marketplace should be allowed to dictate processing capacity and processors should survive on their own initiative and business sense.

I ask the minister if it is government's policy to allow processors to compete independently without any financial assistance or financial support from his government?

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister today would confirm or deny that his government has given approval, or that approval is about to be given, for a guaranteed loan in excess of $1 million for a fish processor right here in this Province? A processor, by the way, Mr. Speaker, who paid more money for raw material last year than their competitors could afford to pay.

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

MR. EFFORD: I would ask the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, who he is talking about.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture reads the bills or not, but Bill 11, five processors there who are guaranteed government loans. On page 7, it says that even the expiry date for one processor has been struck out altogether and the amount has been raised from $1 million and substituted by the amount of $2 million. I ask the minister if he is aware of this Bill 11?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the existing guaranteed loans that government has on the books. When the hon. member asked the question, he left an impression that we were giving out a new, a guaranteed loan to a processor who was paying more for fish in the competitive market.

First of all, the guaranteed loans out there are existing loans that have been on the books. We are not giving out any more guaranteed loans to any company in the Province outside of the ones that we have on the books, or any new company that is asking for it. And as far as these individuals who he says are paying more for crab or fish prices, that is untrue, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the minister's attention to page 7 of Bill 11. Unless I am reading it wrong, Mr. Speaker, clause 3.(c) says quite clearly, that the government guaranteed loan has been increased from $1 million to $2 million.

I ask the minister if he would explain what a government guaranteed loan is, number one; and, number two, if this is not new money that has been brought forward in this fiscal year?

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

MR. EFFORD: Do I understand from the hon. member, who stood last night and accused this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of not representing the people in this Province, not representing the fisherpeople in this Province and rural Newfoundland, out there not listening and wanting to close down everything that is happening out there, do I understand now that the hon. member wants to close down the Fogo Co-operative Society on Fogo Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, all I am saying is that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand here and go about the Province and say that you are not going to commit any funding to fish processors in this Province.

I ask the minister again if it is his intention of having his government stay out of the business of fish processing and to allow processors to operate independently?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the question first.

First of all, this government has not increased the loan guarantee to the Fogo Island Co-operative beyond its original amount. It was $2 million before and it was reduced to one; it is back now to two.

I also ask the hon. member: Does he want to go down to Fogo Island and tell the 3,500 people on Fogo Island they should resettle, they should leave the Island and get out of the fishing industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

About three weeks ago in the House I asked the Premier questions with respect to a number of proposals that are before government on hydro development on our small lakes, rivers or streams. The one that comes to mind, that I questioned the Premier on at that time, was North West River. He indicated at the time that Cabinet had not yet decided on that proposal but that it would be coming to Cabinet. So I would like to ask the minister today: Has there been any movement, from government's point of view, in either rejecting or accepting the private proposal from a private developer to develop the hydro dams on our own lakes and streams?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know these proposals are going through the normal process and private operators have spent considerable sums of money. You cannot cut them off in mid-stream - pardon the pun - but they are, as I understand it, now before the Department of Environment and Labour going through the normal environmental assessment processes. When these processes are finished, the minister of course has to take it before the full Cabinet. I think what the Premier was referring to is, at that time Cabinet will make a final determination on them.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer certainly leads to a far bigger and greater question, which is a matter of public policy. Does this government support the private development of our lakes and streams? For example, does government support private interests coming in to develop small hydro projects on dams, lakes or rivers in this Province while yet we have a hydro corporation which is enshrined and legislated with the responsibility to do that? Does government support private development, yes or no?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has put together a Cabinet committee of a number of ministers, including myself and the Minister of Environment and Labour, to look at this whole issue; but you have to put it in context, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition makes it sound like all of the lakes, streams and rivers in the Province are available for hydro development.

Let me tell him, as I have told him before and as I have told members in the Estimates Committees, there are currently 150 megawatts of clean hydro power available in the Province. Eighty of those megawatts currently reside with the corporation, with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with Upper Island Pond and Granite Canal. The balance of those, roughly 70 megawatts, sit in a limited number of rivers. I think it is about six rivers. I think of Torrent River, Northwest River, some rivers on the South Coast. Some of those are currently being assessed.

I say to the hon. member, beyond that, the rivers, lakes and streams, which in the main are most of the rivers, lakes and streams in the Province, are not available for hydro development because they do not have that potential to create the megawatts sufficient enough for the capital markets to support that kind of development.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as per usual, in what is becoming very transparent in the House, when direct questions are asked there are no direct answers coming back. The question I asked the minister is: What is government's policy with respect to the private development of what is left in terms of hydro dams, what is left for the Province to develop? I understand, and the minister knows I understand, that there is only about 150 megawatts left to develop on the Island - no question about that - but the point is this -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, it is not about catching on, Minister. The point is, it is about government catching on to what the public want and what we deserve. Does government support handing over those rivers and streams that are left, that can be developed, that make up that 150 megawatts? Does he support handing out those developments to private interests? Or should we move towards Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro developing it on behalf of all the people?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again, half of the current 150 megawatts available for clean, efficient, feasible hydro power resides with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The others went out some years ago for public proposals. Currently there are private developers looking at the economic and environmental feasibility of proceeding with these.

Now, is the hon. member seriously saying we should stop those in midstream and attract the kind of legal liability and pay out potential millions of dollars from the Treasury, or let the process continue along the course in law, that is designed in law under the Environmental Act, let it continue? When it is completed, if there are problems, the Minister of Environment and Labour will take it to Cabinet, and obviously if there are sufficient problems and sufficient evidence to show that they should not proceed then they will not proceed.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, handing out million of dollars in liability would be no new venture for this government, let me assure you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - when we come to Trans City and other ventures, and more to come.

The point is this. What I am suggesting is that as a party and as a government, do what we have suggested; cancel all proposals for non-utility generators. The message should be that if lakes, rivers and streams are about to be developed in this Province because hydro power is needed, then we should do it ourselves. That is what I am saying to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: So the public policy issue is this. Do we hand out regulated monopolies? Because that is what they are, Minister, regulated monopolies, when you hand out rivers for damming.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: You cannot dam a river more than once. Do we continue to put out regulated monopolies, or do we protect rivers and streams in this Province for the people of this Province? That is the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition must have some very sore parts of his anatomy, because he doesn't know where he stands from day to day. One day he says: We will give you an answer on the Lower Churchill, the $8 billion project, the framework that has been laid out, but we are not sure yet, we haven't really decided whether we are for the Lower Churchill, whether we are for the 40,000 jobs, whether we are for the $8 billion project inside the Province.

Now he jumps up and espouses a policy that we should cancel all the rivers. I say to him, if we cancel all the rivers, is your party on record that if we attract the legal liability and the multi-million dollar lawsuits that could come our way, that you support that? Tell us where you stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

With respect to the Lower Churchill, it is my understanding, unless the minister has a deal to lay on the table today, there are very positive aspects to the framework agreement. We have neither embraced it nor have we torn it down because government has yet to sign a deal that is final and binding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member -

MR. E. BYRNE: When they table it in the Legislature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - we will let them know the next day, that is what I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The continuance of this spin of information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the -

MR. E. BYRNE: - to suggest in some way, in part or in whole, that we will not take a stand is (inaudible) wrong, Minister, and you know it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to what this party's position is on public policy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - with respect to private rivers and (inaudible), I will ask the minister this. Go home tonight, Minister, get on your Internet, and look up under our home page and you will see our hydro policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is: Will you support it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not careful he is going to branding himself, and he is slowly doing it, as `Mr. Wishy-Washy.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: At least, Mr. Speaker, when Lynn Verge was leader you knew where she stood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Sullivan was leader you knew where he stood. What we have here is a blob of grey flutter that tries to take every angle. It is like water, it will find its own mould. You have to stand on your feet and be responsible. You just cannot spout negatives, spout allegations, unless you tell us where you stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the -

MR. FUREY: Where do you stand on compensating the eight or ten companies that could attract legal liability to the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know what the big hurry is over there, Mr. Speaker. They are in a rush to do a lot of things.

I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods today. Two of the most devastating threats to our forest industry are forest fires and insect infestation. We never know until the year spins around what will happen with the forest fires, but we do know this year there is an infestation in the forest with sawfly. We know that we have spent millions of dollars, and I encourage the minister to spend more, in silviculture, which is a responsible thing to do. When we have an infestation like this we have to protect our investment.

With respect to Dylox and what we know about it, I would like to ask the minister: Given the data on this chemical which indicates it becomes most toxic to other wildlife, particularly when mixed with water, will the minister indicate what steps are to be taken in the application of this process to reduce that danger?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have submitted our proposal to Environment for an environmental assessment, and we have had public information sessions for the last two months, on the West Coast in particular and in Central Newfoundland. We have provided a great detail of information on this in our registration document. That is available also for the member.

The permission we have sought from Health Canada through their management agency for use of this insecticide for the spraying program for this year outlines a whole range of conditions. Those conditions are available also. It outlines in its approval how we are to operate. Also, as we go through the environmental assessment process we may have further conditions attached to it, if it is approved.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

There is no doubt that there have been a lot of concerns raised about this particular chemical, new to this Province and so on. The United States and Canada have some different reports on it, talking about the toxicity of that particular chemical. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how much time we have before the spray program begins, and has the minister considered any other chemicals besides Dylox, and has he considered any experimental use or controlled method before we go into a full spray program? That was a concern that was raised.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, since January of this year we have indicated the problem that we are facing on the West Coast in particular and also in Central in a smaller area, and we have been evaluating all of the options. One of the other options is Fenitrothion, a product which has been registered for the sawfly, but we are, like you said, into the environmental assessment process now. We have been looking at all of our options and getting all of our homework done trying to deal with this problem that we have, and it is a serious problem, but we are also very cognizant of the concerns raised. That is why our officials have been working with officials in Environment and also with health officials to ensure that whatever we are going to do, that it is the safest thing possible to do, to deal with the forest problem that we have when it comes to the infestation. The Health Canada approval that has been given to us is only given based on certain conditions that you can meet, and right now we are waiting for a decision.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Justice.

If we are to achieve a proper balance in administering justice today, Minister, we must also pay more attention to the growing body of evidence that tells us that victim/offender mediation can greatly benefit victims of certain types of crime, greatly reduce their fear that they will be further victimized, and make it less likely that the offenders will re-offend. There is a solid and growing body of evidence to show that these completely voluntary victim/offender mediation programs really do work. So my question to the minister is: Has you department or has the government taken any concrete steps to advance victim/offender mediation opportunities in our Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the whole concept of mediation is a very fast growing concept, as the hon. member knows. I will need some time to develop this, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, last year we amended the court act whereby we are extending the Unified Family Court, where we are making mediation available now from - it used to stop at Holyrood, and this is not specifically where the member is coming from, but we have extended the Unified Family Court to take in Clarenville and the whole Bonavista Peninsula area. With the Unified Family Court, of course, mediation is made available and paid for by the Province where we have expanded the jurisdiction and we have just proclaimed the legislation not too long ago actually; I think it was yesterday or the day before.

We are also looking at ways to make it available to other courts in the Province. It is not practical to expand the Unified Family Court to other parts of the Province, but we are looking at making mediation services available, Mr. Speaker. We have not come up with a way to do that. We are looking at several options and are in the process.

I guess the quick answer to the hon. gentleman's question is, yes, we are committed to the concept of mediation and we have taken concrete steps in the Unified Family Court -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DECKER: - and we certainly support it in the other court system (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

 

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

 

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to table answers to two questions that were posed in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis. While I answered them in part, I did not have sufficient time to answer them fully so I am tabling the answers to the questions today in the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Motion 10.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a motion on behalf of the personal care home operators of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess today we were stymied in some of our questions in this House. That is very unfortunate. Some of these people travelled a fair distance to hear some answers and they did not hear them.

Over the past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the annual general meeting of the personal care home operators of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was appalled to find out that the Minister of Health and Community Services did not attend this particular function, but I was more appalled when the person who turned up from the Department of Health and Community Services could not answer questions - questions that were asked at last year's annual meeting in Gander, questions that were asked a year before that in St. John's, and there are still no answers forthcoming. Mr. Speaker, I think that is wrong. I think it is criminal almost that these people have been now waiting close to three years to find answers to questions they have asked. They have been waiting for three years. Some of them are here today, by the way, to find out where these answers are.

One of the questions is: We have people who live with these people in personal care homes who receive $900 month; yet the same person in the Hoyles Home or Escasoni receives some $2,100 a month. Why? People also have now taken patients out of personal care homes and brought them into their own homes, and I am not talking about their own families either. I am talking about people who have taken them in. We pay them more money than we pay the personal care home operators in this Province and we provide them with money, I say to the minister, to do repairs to their homes.

In one case in my district, Minister, I will just tell you one story of one person. They came in and looked at the house and said, `Your bathroom should be bigger'. They had absolutely no problem with doing what they had to do with these two particular patients, absolutely no problem whatsoever. This government went in and spent, I think it was close to $5,000 doing repairs in the bathroom. Absolutely ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, absolutely ludicrous.

When I got elected in 1996, there was a report being prepared then called the Kirby Report. That report has been done and it has been submitted to government. I believe that is the second or the third or the fourth report that has been done on behalf of the home-owners in this Province and nothing, absolutely nothing, has been done. They have asked the question of Level I and Level II to come into their homes. What defines a Level I and a Level II? I don't believe they have been given the answer to that. Is a Level I somebody who can button his shirt and a Level II somebody who cannot? Is that what we are really going to get into, Minister, I say to you today? Because these people have concerns and these people's concerns should be addressed.

I think almost every chance I have had in this House since 1996, I have raised the concerns of home-owners in this Province, not to the present minister but to the previous minister. I offered to take him with me and drive him around to personal care homes in my own district to let him see firsthand - if he does not know or he did not understand - the care and attention that were given to these people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course that offer was never accepted. I offered to do it when the House was in session; I offered to do it when the House was not in session. It made no difference to me, Mr. Speaker, when we did it. All I asked was that it would be done so that somebody could sit down and not bring messages back to government, but that the minister could see firsthand exactly what was going on in homes in this Province.

I know some of the members on the other side, and I can look over there today and say to some of these members that there are people sitting in this gallery from your districts, and I believe it is time in this House that we stood up for the rights of the home-owners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That we have not done. If we had done it, things would be entirely different in their business today. All one had to do, Mr. Speaker, was on Saturday morning turn up at their annual general meeting and sit and listen to the total, total frustration of these people who have invested their life savings into these homes.

I had a call last week from somebody who is not in my district, who has been in this business for forty years, who received a call from their accountant saying: If you continue to progress as you are, or you continue to go forward as you are going for another twelve months, this time next year you will be bankrupt.

I used to hear the former minister say it is the best bang for the health care buck in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, if it is the best bang for the buck in health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, why haven't we compensated these home-owners for it? Why haven't we done that? Because, Mr. Speaker, we certainly haven't done it. We have gone nowhere close to it. We have probably paid them lip-service, but that is about it. We have done absolutely nothing for the home-owners in this Province, because every time there is a question at an annual general meeting, the answer is, `We will get back to you'. And all of a sudden we are doing an another report, and another report, and another report. It is an industry in this Province that has been totally studied to death.

I say to members opposite, to the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, some of the those home-owners who are here today are from his district and I believe he fully knows the plight of the home-owner in his district. There are home-owners here from the District of Topsail today, and I hope the member fully understands their plight. I hope he fully understands what these people are going through, the frustrations they are going through, and the fact that they have been a neglected industry at least since 1996, since I was elected. Because I have been standing in this House in Budget Debate, and whenever I have had the opportunity, to speak on personal care homes. I will continue to do that until this injustice has been rectified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Because, Mr. Speaker, it is an injustice. When I say that people who are in these galleries today have put their life savings into this business, I am not kidding. If any member over there thinks I am, when this is over this afternoon, meet me in the lobby and I will introduce you to people who have put their life savings into this business. I will introduce you to a man and his wife who are working seven days a week, fifteen and sixteen hours a day, to try to keep their business afloat. So if we think this is a joke, it is no joke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Providing a level of care (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Providing a level of care as good as any institution in this Province. I would challenge anybody in this House to say that level of care has not been given.

Again, I know members opposite who attended functions that I have attended, and they have attended functions where those personal care operators have been. They know of the care and attention that these people have been given.

I watched some years ago as a gentlemen in a personal care home who was confined to a wheelchair, but loved where he was. I had the opportunity to meet the gentleman on more than one occasion and he loved the home he was in. But someone figured, because he was in a wheelchair, he should be out in Hoyles-Escasoni. We took him from a home that was paid $870 a month, I believe it was at the time, and put him in the Hoyles Home at over $5,000 a month.

I was not in government then. I asked the question of somebody in the Department of Health. The person is now gone from the Department of Health, but I do not have the answer.

MR. EFFORD: You are not in (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, that is right. But I am in this House of Assembly, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, and if I was in government today, I can assure the Minister of Fisheries that I would not have to be up talking on this issue because this issue would have been settled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: This issue would have been settled a long, long time ago. It would have happened since maybe 1989 even. It should have happened even back then. This is the most neglected industry in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 1988.

MR. FRENCH: There was a proposal in 1989. As the member remembers, when they came to power they cancelled that proposal. The member remembers it well. He should remember it well because that is one of the reasons he got elected, I say to the member.

It is time that you stood in your place today and defended the people who are here today. It is time that you got out of your seat and defended the people here that you were sent here to represent. You can no longer sit in your seat and on your butt and not defend the people who sent you here! When the day comes that that happens, you shouldn't be here any longer, I say to the member opposite. You shouldn't be in this House any longer. If you fail to represent the people who elected you here, you should not be here! That is what I say to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Is it? Is that right? I don't have to bring myself to anywhere where that member is, let me tell you.

The issues here today are very clear, very plain. We know what is going on here today. That is why the home-owners are here today. They are totally frustrated. As I said, I had the opportunity on Saturday morning to personally attend their annual meeting, and personally listen to home-owners ask the same questions this year that they asked last year. That is not untrue. We can meet them after, we can ask them after. They will tell you they asked the same questions last year in Gander as they asked this Saturday morning. I attended the meeting with my colleague because there are quite a few personal care homes in my district. The same questions were asked and the same answer was given, that they could not answer them.

Now I understand there is another report being done that is called - Dr. Palfrey, I think it is, something like that, has now done another study. I understand the report may be now submitted. That is another report on home-owners in this Province. How many more studies are we going to have to do before somebody gets a message? When I see a man and his wife who work eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, and their children are probably filling in when they are out of school to help them out in their business, that is sad. That is a very sad thing and a very sad day. Some of these home-owners are down eighteen beds. Again, that is very sad.

If it is the best bang for our health care buck then this is what we should be doing; we should be helping out the home owners of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have preached that since 1996, since I have been here as a member. I did it last year, I did it again this year when I rose in the Budget Debate. I spoke. I always take time to talk about the home-owners in this Province. When I see the fact of people with thirty-five and forty years in this business, if it continues at the rate we are going, in 1998 they will be bankrupt. Because they cannot do any more as families than they are doing, they cannot put any more time into their business than they are putting in.

I ask this House today to immediately intercede on behalf of these home-owners. I think the time of studying is gone. We had reports before I was elected here. I think one was called the Doane Raymond. I believe there was another report before Doane Raymond, the Touche-Ross Report, and then after I got elected there was the Kirby Report, and I understand Dr. Palfrey is doing another study now. I don't know if it is finished, but it is now being done.

As I have said here many times, we have an industry that has been studied to death. The time for studying it is no longer.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First thing I would like to say is that I was very disappointed to hear the comments by the members opposite, about my unavailability to attend the meeting that was held last week. I think that those people that are in the gallery, that are listening, will acknowledge the fact that just days after I was appointed as Minister of Health last year, I flew to Gander to be at the meeting to hear their issues and concerns. They would also know, and I think that it is important for them to know and also for this House to know, in fact, that I was out of the Province and came back in time to speak to a national meeting that I had committed to some eight months prior. I think in all fairness, I see this issue as a very important issue, one, as I said, I pointed out last year I have attended. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I have also met with personal home care owners in the interim.

So, I take great offence to that insinuation. I think the people in the gallery know differently, and I think it is nothing more, again, than political grandstanding to reduce this issue to political, when it is so important.

I will further say, Mr. Speaker, that I do believe it is a very serious issue, and that I did have an official attending the meeting, who has been working very closely with this group over the last year and who I thought, up until this point in time, had developed a very solid rapport with those groups of homeowners and operators. Unfortunately that is not the case, and I will certainly be looking into that.

I think that because of the seriousness of this issue, and because not only has my official has been very honest with the personal care home-owners but so have I, when I met with them last year I identified to them that there were many issues involved in this whole process. This is not a stall tactic, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have prided myself on trying to have as much information and use all the available evidence that we need before we make decisions.

It is not a personal care issue, in a sense where it is an isolated issue. There are about eight issues that are involved in this particular scenario called `continuing care', and many of those are issues that interact with one another and they are very important. I think it makes sense that we try to deal with all of them rather than deal with them piecemeal. I made that point very clear and my intention has been very clear.

I think for both the Member for Conception bay South and the Member for Ferryland, who attended the meeting the other night, they would have heard my official speak to the home-owners in the same regard as I will speak today, and that is that we have, in fact, since I have been minister, put together a lot of information, including the Palfey Report which deals specifically with the St. John's area.

We have also done a number of other reports, and I will admit we have done the reports, and I will also admit that all the reports that I am interested in doing are completed. They will also know, because they were at the meeting - whether they choose to remember or not remains to be seen - that we have all of the information gathered and that information is going to my officials for me to deal with in the very near future.

It covers a whole range of issues, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we are looking at the issue of unlicensed homes versus licensed homes. We know, in fact, that there are many concerns out there about homes that are operating. I think that many of the home-owners have spoken to me personally, some of them off the record, saying that some of the homes out there are homes that give them concern, in terms of bringing down the standards which they see as acceptable in delivering personal care home services in the community. So, that is something that we will be looking at.

We have reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government Service Centre, between the Department of Health and Community Services and the regional boards. We know the issues around this are very clear, and that is: When there are problems arising we need to have a clear path for identifying how these issues will be resolved. Up until this point that has not been done effectively.

Another issue, of course, is the whole issue that was not raised, but I think is important to be raised to have on the record. We have so many issues with respect to personal care homes, as it relate to the beds. We have the occupied beds and the unoccupied beds. We have the subsidized beds and the non-subsidized beds. We have the licensed homes and the non-licensed homes. And we have the private payers and we have the publicly funded payers.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why it is a concern for the Member for Conception Bay South, particularly, because it is important to note that, in fact, over half of our whole budget that we put into personal care homes goes to that district and the district around Paradise. So I can understand how it would be an issue. Over 700 of the beds there are subsidized. The next highest region with a bed subsidy is 300. So you do have a big vested interest on behalf of your constituents, and I would look for your support when we look to doing something that is quite unique in terms of moving from a subsidized bed model to a personal or resident subsidy, because that will certainly change the lay of the land in your district, I am sure. What it will do is spread out the number of client subsidies across the Island, and it would be done more on a basis of client need as opposed to identifying the beds as it is currently structured. That is certainly one of the recommendations.

While many personal care home-owners are very supportive of that issue, many of the ones with the bed subsidies are not that supportive. So we have to find some common ground in dealing with some of these issues. I speak to this because, I will say again, it is not a simple issue, it is something that we need to spend the proper amount of time dealing with.

There are other issues concerning the pension rates and the OAS rates and how the cost-of-living allowance impacts on those rates for personal care home-owners. I am quite familiar with those issues and I have been working with my officials. I told them last year that I would look at that issue and I would deal with it as part of the complete package, and I will be doing that, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we will be meeting very soon. We have our meeting dates set down and I have spoken to many of my colleagues, because I think it is important to note that this issue has been raised by a number of my colleagues sitting here today who will later speak. This is not an issue that we have not been paying attention to, but all we will say is we need to have all of the information. Now one might think we are studied to death but I have to say that our issues in St. John's are totally different from those that are outside the St. John's area, and many of the personal care home-owners can attest to that as well.

One of the other areas that we have been looking at is the issue of the financial reporting. We need to look at, more specifically, as we look at this more comprehensive approach, the roles of the boards, and also how we can standardize financial assessments across all of the boards as it relates to long-term care. So I think it is important that we look at that perspective as well. We are also looking at putting together an up-to-date personal care home manual which will go to the stakeholders for review, and I think the stakeholders have been made aware of this because I know I have spoken with some of them in a meeting that I had with them not too long ago.

Some of the other areas that we are looking at are ways to evaluate, the type of assessment tools that we are using and also the levels of care. I know that is a very big issue. How do we identify levels of care? How do we compare levels one and two to level three? How do we differentiate the cognitively impaired from the physically needy? Those kinds of issues are very important.

 

In addition to that, we are also looking at the subsidy and I think that is something that comes in the full package of what it is we are trying to do. So I will say very clearly, that some of our main issues are focused around the whole issue of a bed subsidy versus a client subsidy. Our other issues of main concern are about the whole issue of the subsidy itself and how that impacts on people who are receiving pensions, and also on how we do the analysis and assessment of the levels, level one and level two.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, in our Province we have a number of subsidized beds. We have not done any subsidized bed allocation since 1994. However, in the Eastern Region we do have the highest number with 772 subsidized beds. In some areas of our Province, for example Labrador, we have as low as twenty-two subsidized beds, and I do know that the needs are greater in certain areas. So one of the things that we are looking at very clearly is how we are able to address the subsidy issue, moving perhaps from the bed subsidy to the client subsidy. I look forward to the views, particularly from the member for that district, as we look in that area.

In light of some of the comments that I have made today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the resolution be amended by striking out the three paragraphs of the recital and substituting the following:

"WHEREAS personal care home-owner operators provide a valuable health care service in the Province for many people needing care;

AND WHEREAS government is cognizant of the valuable service provided by personal care home operators."

The resolution is further amended by striking out the resolution and substituting the following:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House urge the provincial government to review all aspects of continuing care services, including the question of subsidy levels for personal care homes."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I submit this amendment for your review.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I wish to state that the amendment the member has put forth is not dealing with the specific request in the resolution about granting an increase. It is dealing with a revisiting. That completely destroys the intent of the resolution, calling for further debate and study on it, and it defeats the purpose of the resolution submitted by the Member for Conception Bay South. I ask certainly that the Speaker rule it out of order on that basis.

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that what the amendment says in the resolve is: "Therefore be it resolved that the House urge the provincial government to review all aspects of continuing care services, including the question of subsidy levels for personal care homes."

Mr. Speaker, in regards to the amendment being out of order, I would submit that the amendment is perfectly in order. If you look at the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I didn't interrupt your House Leader, so just take it easy. I am talking to the other half of the House Leader, the bottom half of the House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is -

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

This is a very serious matter. The Chair is trying to determine exactly what the Government House Leader is saying.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that certain alterations to the resolution can be carried out. Indeed, you can practically change the resolution completely. I would submit to you that in this case it does not change the resolution completely. It just changes certain words of the resolution to make it more acceptable to the House. That is perfectly in order.

In the meantime, I suspect Your Honour will want to take a few minutes to look this over and see if it is in order. I suspect he would. Obviously it is up to you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess for a few minutes to determine whether or not the amendment is in fact in order.

 

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In determining whether the amendment was in order, the Chair referred to Beauchesne and reviewed the section dealing with amendments, specifically from '567 to '579 inclusive, and I would like to draw hon. members' attention to Section '567 which states: "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question." That is a quote from Sir Erskine May.

The ruling is that the amendment is acceptable and is in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak on this particular motion now as amended. I might add it is completely replaced. Certainly, legislatively it may be an admissible amendment, and I do not debate that point at all, but I can tell you that it has not made it more acceptable to this side of the House, I can assure you. It certainly put forth a proposition that is entirely unacceptable to this side of the House. You want to water it down.

I would like to say to the minister before I start, one particular point. I am hoping she will hear this. Minister, I want to say for you information, your director of continuing care came under great praise by people representing the homes for special care. In fact, very much so, I would say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until now.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not until now. Nobody has ever here in this House - I have not, and I am sure my colleague has not - taken to task the role that person has done. She was commended there. I sat there for two hours at that meeting and nobody had... The frustration, Minister, was that there are people in authority, people with the power to make decisions - they have been crying on deaf ears for many years and they have not been heard. That is the problem, I say to the minister, and more studies - refer this back and review it. I have read more studies on nursing homes. Go back to 1980s from Nycum studies and you name it. I have read more -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentlemen in his speech. As a matter of fact, he usually makes a very good speech. The truth of the matter is, this resolution does not call for more study. It does not call for any such nonsense. It does not say, review and study.

All this resolution does, as amended, is to say that the minister is going to take an overall look at this to see where indeed she can help those people in many areas, as well as at the level of subsidy that is now being put forward. I think that is what the hon. minister means. There is no call for a study here. As much as the hon. gentleman might like to leave the belief in the minds of people that there is, there is no call for a study here, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No point of order.

MR. TULK: There is no point of order, I know that, but I have to clear that up.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. Government House Leader was taking advantage of the opportunity to engage in the debate and to add some clarification.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have limited time here today, fifteen minutes maximum, of which some has been wasted now on a point of order. I was denied leave this morning to raise some very important issues that were not spelled out in the resolution that we proposed today. I had hoped to address in Question Period the scope of things not covered in the resolution today. I did not have the opportunity to do that, and I want to do it now. I would like to do it, without interruption on points of order, to raise legitimate points in the House that I want to get on the record. That is all I am asking.

I had intended to discuss with the minister this morning - I do grant that my first question did relate to what is on the Order Paper, and I stood again and wanted to address questions that were not related to it. I am going to touch on both today now in the minutes I have.

One particular issue I wanted to touch on, the one I started to raise first, is that I agree on that issue. That particular question I was going to ask could conflict with the legislative authority here to raise an issue that is coming up for discussion. I am now going to do it, and I have an opportunity to do it, and I will raise other issues that are not.

I cannot see, when the minister tells us that the focus today is on the client, we have to look at everything for the client. I am asking the minister: Why, if the focus is on the client, do you allow several thousand dollars, in excess of $2,000, $2,100 and up, more in some cases, to be given to care for people in nursing homes with Level I care, and in their homes, but you only provide - actually what it amounts to is about $500 a month, when you look at the total number of subsidized beds, and almost $7 million roughly provided for it. Why are you only allowing, out of government funding, an average of $500 per month for those homes for the special care when you are allowing $2,000 to $3,000 and $4,000 in instances here for the same Level I people in other facilities or other locations in the Province?

If it is a client-focused thing, you should not be discriminated on the virtue of where a person is residing if you are going to base it on the type of care they need. That is a discriminatory measure that has been going on here for a number of years. Since 1989 - I can speak since 1992, since I have been in this House, that has not been rectified, I say to the minister.

I will tell you what has happened since that time. In 1994 I stood, in Estimates, and asked the minister and her staff - or his staff at the time - the question: How many subsidized beds are in the Province? Minister, in 1994 there were 1,346 subsidized beds in the Province. Today, 1,100 is the figure given me by your department in this area. You told me 1,100. That is a question I asked on Saturday at the meeting; 635 for over sixty-five, 465 for people under sixty-five.

If that is the case - an important issue, I say to the minister - the need for care for elderly people is increasing with an aging population. Why have you allowed the number of subsidised beds - when homes go out of business because of nothing done by government in action for a number of years, why have you pulled 250 subsidized beds out of the system since 1994, almost 20 per cent of the subsidized beds that were in the system? That is not caring for people, I say to the minister. That is a cost-cutting measure that is depriving people of an opportunity to get the care they need, and forcing people out of business.

While this was happening, I say to the minister, you let go uncontrolled the licensing of licensed and unlicensed homes in the Province. That drove the vacancy rate up so high that these people are struggling with their lifetime of earnings and it is forcing them out of business. Those are some of the problems we are experiencing. And, Minister, while that is going on here we have close to 100 people at times who are discharged from hospitals here in this Province, occupying hospital beds - and I speak with the Health Care Corporation, I get numbers, I keep a general check on numbers that are in locations - costing, I might say to my colleagues, costing $500 to $795 a day if they are at the Health Sciences. In the run of a year it is costing up to $250,000 to keep people in those facilities who are medically discharged; and while you do that you have nursing homes that have Level I people here, Level I people who are paying the whole bill.

Hoyles-Escasoni will cost an average of $5,000 a month, about $60,000 a year, not counting the capital cost that drives it up to around $100,000 a person. And you put people out into a home for the special care with an old age security level cheque - you get 110 and you subsidize a portion of that - and in the last few years as they got increases, you clawed back increases for years - the few little measly dollar increases on their old age security - and would not provide it to the people who were struggling with high vacancy rates or at the point of bankruptcy. People have gone that route already. They have gone out of business, they cannot operate, and other people are out there today in the same situation.

Minister, you have lost your focus of caring for people. Personal care homes and caring for people is not a business like selling candy in the corner store. It is not a business like selling cars or any other thing. It is not a commodity out there that you auction off to the lowest bidder. It is a service provided to people in this Province who need a certain care and certain service.

I have been in many homes for the special care, or personal care homes as we have called them in my district. I have had an opportunity. I know people in some of those homes and the owner gives them his clothes, his shirts and so on for these people to wear. That is what they use. They pass on clothes and other things to them because they are on such a meagre subsistence, I call it, in trying to survive.

They are cut to the bone, I say to the minister. All we are doing is just waiting and hoping, I suppose. If you let it go for another while there won't be a subsidized bed left in this Province. We have lost 250 now. I mean, we are on a downward slide. The minister said that is right. If that is the case, we have to look at: Do we auction off care for our people to the lowest bidder? The minister is going to introduce a bill that is going to eliminate private clinics and private operations, and then she is turning around and we are going to auction off our people to care for them to the lowest bidder? That is nonsense, that is hypocrisy, it is speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the one time.

The minister talks about getting in all available evidence. Look, Minister, we have been studied from Nycum studies; I have read studies on nursing homes here. Companies come in from (inaudible). We have gone through the gamut. I have up in my office volumes, look, that thick, on reports on the whole analysis, and what happens? Nothing happens. We buy more time. We get frustrated.

I mean, there is a revolving door almost in the health department now; we get new personnel in and out. That is part of the process, I know, a revolving door, almost all new people, start over again, look at it again. People cannot wait forever. If that is the deliberate attempt, what they are intending to do, the minister should have stood in her place and said: Our intent is to eliminate them altogether. Get up and tell the truth about it, come out and say what it is, not bleeding them to death slowly, I might say to the minister.

There are questions I wanted to address today. Are there going to be controls on licensing? Is it a free-for-all out there today? What happens with unlicensed homes? What happens overall with care for our people in the Province is the ultimate concern. I have read some interesting books. One, I think, was Limits on Care, a very authoritative study done, I read last year. I have it in my office. A very lengthy 700- or 800-page book. It looks at the aspects of caring for our people today in our society and in the future.

We have today people in a different situation. We have today many young people and young families who have gone out of this Province, they have gone to get work elsewhere. Many of these people don't have families to look after them any more. Normally you had large families in rural communities or urban areas, and you could care for your parents or family members. Today 90 per cent of many of the people in certain families are out of this Province working. All they have left here are their parents, and maybe one or two people who are stressed to the limits and cannot cope with it.

We have seen, and my colleague mentioned, people taken out of those homes and put in a nursing home. The average cost, I might add, of Hoyles-Escasoni is about $5,000 a month operational costs to keep people in that home. A government funded, 100 per cent funded, home. Actually, back in 1994, in the Estimates there, there were 1,346 subsidized beds in this Province costing this Province $3.124 million, an average cost of $23,064 a bed. Two hundred dollars a month was the average cost then. We got 50 per cent paid by the federal government. It would have been over $6 million. Right now that is cut out. We don't get shared programs any more. There is a lump sum. The Canada Health and Social Transfer has downloaded costs on the Province.

The same Premier who was a part of the government that introduced that, he set the plan to take us from $427 million that we received when he was our federal minister, just before it, in transfers to this Province on health, post-secondary education, and social services. When he was finished with his plan we were getting $272 million, $155 million less, and it would have gone to $230 million except for the federal election, they were in trouble last year, and they froze that floor and wouldn't put it any farther.

That is who you are robbing, the people out there. Robbing the people caring for our elderly out in these homes - that paid the price. The average of $200 a month in 1994 to this Province, when a bed in a nursing home was $5,000. I have the list on every one. I obtained figures a couple of years ago. For instance, the cheapest was in the vicinity of $3,000 a month at Glenbrook Lodge, right up to $50-some hundred a month. I mean, $60,000 a year, not counting the cost of the building.

They have to maintain their building, have to pay their workers, have to look after repairs, have to provide services and care for people. What happens when you cut back and don't provide the resources? People go bankrupt and out of business, or people have to suffer in the process. They are not getting the sufficient funding, I will say, and it is about time this government started to realize that all we are doing is turning over wheels.

The minister gets up here today in this House and says: The House urge the provincial government to review all aspects of continuing care service including the question of subsidy levels for personal care homes.

I mean, Minister, I know some of the problems out there as well as you. You made reference to some that - I sat there in the meeting on Saturday, and I would have liked to stay there all day except I had another commitment. I managed to get there for a couple of hours, two-and-a-half hours actually altogether, I say to the minister, and I spoke with - they were willing to change to accommodate the minister, and someone from the department had sent a director who is doing a good job in the eyes of these people out there who have to bear the brunt of the frustrations of people out there today. It should be done by the minister. The minister should be the one to hear their concerns.

We know licensed homes is one of the issues. We know the rates and the OAS and the GIS, we are familiar with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, to make up for the minute or two I lost there on points of order?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: About a minute or so on the point of order. I lost a minute or two, that's all.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, but he took my time away. You would not allow it in Question Period. All I am asking for is leave to speak for another minute or two. I am just asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, okay.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The need to standardize financial assessments and those things, we are familiar with all these concerns, long-term care, classifying care. Look, these are ongoing issues that have been going on forever, and there will always be changes, but I can tell you the people out here providing the care now are not always going to be around unless something is done immediately to address this problem. All we have here in a resolution today - an amendment he threw out there today - to review it again. That is the last thing we wanted to hear today was a review, and for the minister to stand up and propose to go and review all those things.

That is an ongoing job for that minister anyway, and the previous... I have been in this House for six years and I have raised this issue. It has come up by my colleague on many occasions, we have addressed it there, and it still has not been addressed today. That is unfortunate now with homes gone out of business since, and other people on the brink, and the minister will not take immediate action to correct it. She is going to let them die a slow death. That is basically what we are hearing here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I suppose there is not much I can say in opposition to what my colleague from Conception Bay South has said, and I do not think too many members on this side of the House would disagree.

I am not an expert on community care or health care but I am somewhat familiar with the situation that exists in my district and in the District of Conception Bay South. I should be. I know we have the largest concentration of community care beds in the Province, and I know the frustrations that these operators are having, and nobody on this side of the House is going to or should deny that we are getting the best bang for our dollar in health care with the community care homes.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that a number of studies have been done, and we can understand the frustration of these operators. My hon. colleague opposite said that some of them have invested their life savings into these particular operations and are doing an excellent job, and people are questioning why the discrepancy between the amount they get paid in a subsidy and what they get in a nursing home. The type of care may be different but the quality, I can guarantee you, in these community care homes is one of the best.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had some words back and forth this evening about the wording of the resolution. Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, the wording of the resolution is not so important. What is important, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is important?

MR. WISEMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you why the amendment was done, why I feel it should have been done - I guess probably the tone in which the first one was written. I do not sit, Mr. Speaker, on the opposite side of the House, I sit on the government side of the House. I make no bones about it, that I have made representation to the minister and I have received complaints from home care operators in my district. I am assured by the minister, Mr. Speaker, and she has said so today, that there is a coordinated approach. She said very clearly that when you change one service in continuing care it has an impact upon another service.

She assures me that we are, and I know that we are, client focused. I hope, as she said in June, that the review will be done, Mr. Speaker. Well, that is what the minister has said, that all the reports are ready to be reviewed in June and she will then make some sort of decision into how she can provide a better service, I guess, to the clients that she represents.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to deny that this issue has been around for some time, and nobody is going to deny that when this government changed in 1989, that we too were faced with a lot of problems; and there are a lot of problems in this Province. I do not mind saying, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of things have changed and a lot of things have been done. There will always be things that need changing and things that need fixing. I believe that this government is equal to the challenge.

Somebody said today about my colleague opposite, about the grandstanding. Well, I tell you, if I was on that side of the House I would be grandstanding too. I can understand where they come from, because that is part of the process, Mr. Speaker, it is part of the process of their bringing their concerns here to this government. We as a government, Mr. Speaker, I believe are responsible enough that we will deal with these issues.

Now, I understand the subsidy is $900 a month, Mr. Speaker, and we all understand that the increase in costs to these people, while they try to continue to provide excellent services to the clients that they have - we can all understand, Mr. Speaker, the trauma that these operators are in, when they have vacancies and they have beds that are unoccupied, but they still have a home to manage. We all realize that, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, and I am sure that this government will deal with it. I think the timing of bringing in this resolution is very appropriate.

We have heard time and time again that everything is studied to death, and I believe that there is a time when you have to stop studying, because then we are studying the study. So, when we stop studying, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this government is a government of action.

Now, I understand the members opposite laughing, because they never had the opportunity to sit on this side of the House and to make a decision. They never had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to sit down and put together a Budget that would try, in some way, to address all the issues that this Province has. And I can understand your behaviour, because that is the way that oppositions should behave, I guess, in a sense that you have to bring the issue forward.

The result, Mr. Speaker, is what is important. If this government can do better than what they are doing, then we should do it and we should do it expeditiously. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this capable minister, a very capable minister, will deal with these issues. I would not put my knowledge up against the hon. member's knowledge. These are the kinds of people, Mr. Speaker, that we need in government, people with the ability, people with the knowledge of the system and people who have had hands-on in health care in this Province.

Now I know, members opposite, it is sometimes pretty difficult to listen to somebody who is saying something nice about an individual who has a very difficult job to do, Mr. Speaker, a very difficult job to do. We can carry on and act like children all we want but, Mr. Speaker, it does not solve the problem of the personal care homes, the community care homes. It does not solve it. But if we, as a government, are going to search to find the way - because we have already recognized the need. We know there is a need and to eliminate that need, Mr. Speaker, is not going to take words. Words are not going to eliminate the need that these people have. It is all tied to dollars and cents. That is what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker. Can we, as a government, find the dollars and cents necessary to help these people with the problem?

The real help, Mr. Speaker, is going to the client because I know that these personal care home operators will do their best and are doing their best, in spite of the circumstances that they find themselves in. It is true, Mr. Speaker - there is no doubt about it - they are frustrated. I would be frustrated. If I were in their position, I would be frustrated. There is not much point, Mr. Speaker, in saying that we would not be, because if I stood in this House and said that it is not a problem, it is fine, it is adequate, then, Mr. Speaker, I would be a fool. I agree with anybody in this House who would call me a fool because that is exactly what I would be, a fool.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government will address this issue, but the minister has said that she wants to review the issue in totality, that if you make a change in one end of health care it affects the whole of health care. In her own words, Mr. Speaker, she is now ready, within the next few weeks - I should not say a few, in the next three or four weeks - to review all the information that has been assembled. Mr. Speaker, I should not say all the information either, because if they include the reports that have been done by the community care homes then we would have quite a stack.

This government, Mr. Speaker, I believe is responsible to the people of this Province and we should be. We should make every effort to do what we can do. Mr. Speaker, it was only yesterday that we changed the National Child Care Benefit Program where the claw backs were taking place of those people on social services, those who have the greatest need. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are just as human as people on the other side of the House. We who are sitting here come from a variety of backgrounds. We were born like everyone else, we were raised by a mother and father, we went to school and we felt all the pain that everybody else felt. Some of us have been in business. I spent fourteen years in business, Mr, Speaker, and I know what its like to operate a business here in Newfoundland; and these people, community care home-owners, operate a business. It is a business, Mr. Speaker, and they have been in difficult times. It is time that we took a look, in the most serious way, at how we can help the people in the personal care home industry.

As I have said on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Minister of Health and Community Services will review, over the next three or four weeks, all the information that she has asked to be assembled so that she can make a responsible decision. Because that is what it is all about. It is no good for us, as a government, to make a decision on a whim, to find out later that we have more problems down the road.

This issue has been an issue, in my recollection, since I came here as an Executive Assistant to a former member in 1989. It was an issue then and it is an issue now. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is time to address the issue in totality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the people from the personal care homes who are sitting in the visitors gallery today - and I am pleased to see them there - could speak, they would agree with what I am saying, that the time has come to take a look at this issue, to deal with it, and let's do it in the best possible way that we can. I am not going to argue with the Opposition House Leader that it is overdue.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things in this Province that are overdue, many, many things, but we have said as a government, Mr. Speaker, that we would concentrate our efforts not on mega projects. This Budget this year, Mr. Speaker, is concentrating on health, education and social services. That is what this government did, Mr. Speaker. We have shifted the focus, Mr. Speaker.

Now I know, Mr. Speaker, that some members opposite may be disappointed because we shifted the focus, because I recall, back in the '80s, that all we talked about was oil, oil, oil. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, there were three elections called on oil, but there was no mention of the devastation that was happening in the fisheries, none. Mr. Speaker, when we look back, when this government came in in 1989 and the problems that we faced, and the 1992 closure of the cod fishery, I believe that this Liberal Government has done well in managing this Province, in spite of all the negativity. None of us in this House will live long enough to solve all the problems that this Province faces, but we are well on the way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to the minister's review in the next three or four weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments with respect to the resolution which was put forward by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, and why I was prepared to support and endorse the resolution as put forward, and why I am not prepared to support the amendment. They are two entirely different resolutions in my opinion.

The resolution, as put forward by my colleague, is a resolution of commitment and it is a resolution of action. The distinction in this resolution and the wording of the amendment, as put forward by members opposite, Mr. Speaker, is that it is once again a resolution of assessment, a resolution of review, a resolution of further study.

I say, on behalf of home-owners, personal care owners in this Province, they have had enough of review, they have had enough of assessment, and they have had enough of study. What they want and what they duly well expect from their government is commitment and action. So that is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against that amendment because it is contrary to the spirit of the resolution as put forward by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, who was prepared in his resolution to put this government and the members of this government, in particular the ministers of this government, and more particularly the Minister of Health and Community Services, to put them to the challenge to say we have had enough of study, we have had enough of review, we have had enough of assessment. On behalf of the home-owners, the personal care home-owners of this Province, we now want to say to them we will act on your behalf. We will do what is necessary to further your cause and to help your particular business interests and in doing that, to help those people who are residents of their particular homes.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, I will be voting against the amendment. It is contrary to the spirit of the resolution as put forward by the Member for Conception Bay South. It is an affront, I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the personal care home-owners and to those residents who live within these homes because once again government is saying: We will not tend to their needs. Once again government is saying: We don't care. We will put it on the back burner. We will review it further. We will study and analyze it to death. It is once again saying to these people, the many hundreds of people who are involved in this industry in our Province, that this government is saying it is not a priority. It is not an issue which needs attention immediately, therefore let's study it further. I say that is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. That is a personal affront to every personal care owner and worker in this Province. I will stand proudly to vote against the amendment that has been put forward by members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a request. The Member for Ferryland made some comments during his speech that the minister wanted to reply to, I wonder if I could have leave from the House to allow her the time, out of my time, to be able to respond to the statements that the Member for Ferryland made? Do I have leave to do that?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister had fifteen minutes. I wanted leave for her to answer questions this morning. To get up a second time: Only the mover has the authority to do that and we are not giving leave for it. She had an opportunity to say what she had to say and sat down. We would have given her leave at that time but not to come back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you scared of the answers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague, the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, has asked for is that there were a number of questions that the Opposition supposedly raised with a great deal of sincerity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, I think they did raise them with a great deal of sincerity. Mr. Speaker, the person who is obviously most capable of answering those questions from this side of the House is the Minister of Health and Community Services, or at least, Mr. Speaker, she should be.

Now, Mr. Speaker, she can't stand up again. She can't stand up again -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: So it is about politics.

MR. TULK: So the hon. gentleman is saying: Will the House give me leave? Would the House allow me to give my time to the member so that she can answer the questions? Now, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman did this afternoon was completely out of order and he knows it. He should not get over there and play with such a vital issue because he got turned down this afternoon himself.

He should, Mr. Speaker, if he wants answers for the people who obviously want them - I say this to him in all sincerity - he should allow the hon. gentleman to give up his time. Otherwise the hon. gentleman is obviously going to have to speak and try to answer the questions as best he can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The question was asked by the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, whether or not the Opposition would grant leave to the Minister of Health to answer some questions put forward in the debate by the Opposition House Leader. The Opposition will not grant leave, and I recognize the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

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

It is unfortunate the Opposition did not see fit to allow the minister to respond to some of the questions that were raised by the Member for Ferryland. I am sure, as the Government House Leader mentioned earlier, the questions were answered in all sincerity; at least I thought they were, and the minister thought they were. I graciously gave up the few minutes needed to respond to the questions, and it is unfortunate that they are continuing to play politics with this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. It is very disturbing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WHELAN: It is unfortunate. They are playing to the gallery. They are making as much out of this as they possibly can and I -

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have proceedings here in this House to be followed, that we have alternating speakers for fifteen minutes. The speaker has spoken once, I say to the hon. minister. She had an opportunity to say what she wanted to say at that time and she has spoken. To imply that we are playing politics with an issue when the government played politics with it all day long.

We want to hear from the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne and any other speakers they want us to hear from. We will wait here until 12:00 tonight and listen to them, if they want to, but we are not going to break the rules of the House when it suits that side of the House to do it. We will abide by the rules we agreed to here in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order put forward by the Opposition House Leader, there is no point of order. The Chair is following the rules set down for Private Member's Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Are you rising on another point of order?

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentleman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: We understand, and there is a procedure in this House whereby the hon. gentleman, if he wanted to, could grant leave. He refuses to grant leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: So did you.

MR. TULK: No, I did not. I just asked the hon. gentleman to follow the rules of the House. He did not ask for leave to ask the questions. I just asked him to follow the rules of the House because he had a chance this afternoon to debate it.

The truth of the matter is, the hon. gentleman has used the procedure to stop the Minister of Health from answering the questions. It is perfectly legitimate for him to do that, there is no harm in it, but that is what he has done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

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

I am certainly delighted to be able to speak to this particular issue today. I think it is a pressing issue, one that I have had great concern about ever since I have been elected.

I was a bit disappointed when the Member for Conception Bay South alluded to the fact, or made insinuations, that I was somehow to blame for the plight of the personal care home-owners. I thought more of him than that, but be that as it may.

I have grave concerns for the guests of the personal care home operators as well as the home operators themselves. I know that all the homes in my area certainly provide adequate care. Most of them provide care that is over and above the call of adequate facilities or adequate living conditions. They have superb living conditions. They certainly reinvest in their homes. They have been involved in this business for many numbers of years. As was stated earlier, many of them have invested their life savings.

So it behooves me to get up today and certainly defend the personal home operators in my area. I realize they are providing a service that, there is no doubt in my mind, certainly is one of the best values that we are getting for our dollar in government today.

Down through the years, the level of care in the homes has had cause for review. A number of things that happened back in the 1970s caused government to have a look at it and say: Look, you have to raise your standards. They were getting X number of dollars. They raised their standards, and I do not think the financial situation they are involved with today, or that they realize today - it does not reflect the expense they have had to go through down through the years to bring the level of care they are providing now up to the standard that it is.

So I would certainly encourage the government to review this with a view to certainly increasing and bringing the level of financial compensation for the effort and the time they are putting into it to somewhere in the realm of reality.

Mr. Speaker, I have known a number of the home operators. They are here in the gallery today; they are members of my district. I know what they have had to put up with, a lot of the bureaucracy, a lot of the red tape they have become involved with, requests that they change certain facilities in their homes, and they may come back in a month's time and say: No, that has to be put back the way it was. All of these types of things are a cause of aggravation and extra expense. The extra paperwork that has been put on their shoulders as well, the extra time they have to put into the business, and extra expense, the cost of training their employees, all has to be absorbed in the $900 they get per month.

So I believe there is certainly a justification in my getting up here today and saying that we should actually look at this particular situation with a view to making it more acceptable not only to the home operators but to government in general, because it is a reflection on government when we do things like that, and we certainly need to take a closer look at it.

I think there is some injustice as well in the fact that some homes receive several thousand dollars per month, while a personal care home operator receives less than a thousand. So I think that certainly needs to be reviewed as well. I know of homes on the South Shore of Conception Bay, the central part of Conception Bay, as well as the northern areas - certainly across the Province it is all the same - and we have to look at it in a Province-wide venue as well. We certainly need to look at the situations on the West Coast, in Labrador and Central Newfoundland, as well as on the East Coast. If we are looking for justice, we have to give justice to all, I would assume.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose in cluing up I have to say that since I have been elected at least, in 1993, there have certainly been a lot of cutbacks, a lot of lay-offs, a lot of belt tightening. I know it is very difficult to come up with the money that is needed to look after all the aspects and all the expenses that various people, various departments, have to consider. But I certainly think this particular situation is one that needs to be looked at and reviewed, as the amendment says, with a view to making the situation a little brighter.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will only take a few minutes here this afternoon to clue up. I will say, right from the start, that I am certainly against the amendment. It changes my intent of the motion altogether.

I believe it was the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne who said it was a political thing on my part. I can only say to members in this House that in 1996 this member was elected. In 1996, I raised the issue of personal care homes in this House; in 1997, I raised the issue personal care homes in this House; and in 1998 I have raised the issue again.

I do not want any more studies done on behalf of the home-owners of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not want any more studies, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or reviews.

MR. FRENCH: Or reviews.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Two of the members over there have spoken. My colleague from Harbour Main - Whitbourne knows full well that this is an industry that has been studied, studied, and studied to death. You know, we are now going to put it off for another review.

Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for that amendment. I cannot vote, in all good conscience, for that amendment. I know how much the home-owners of this Province are suffering and if you want to call it political, you can call it whatever you like because this member here really does not care. This member is up today on an issue that is very, very serious in his district, is a very serious concern for his district and that is why this member has been in his place since 1996 raising the issue of more money for personal care home operators in this Province. It is an industry, Mr. Speaker, that we have studied, that we have gone over and have done it all, and if everybody is so concerned, why did we amend the motion? Why did we amend the motion? There was absolutely no need.

MR. J. BYRNE: We did not, they did.

MR. FRENCH: We did not amend the motion, Mr. Speaker. There was absolutely no need.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister amended it.

MR. FRENCH: The minister amended that motion and I can understand why, because it is another tactic to buy more time. The time has come and the time is passed, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we have discussed this issue. The home-owners of this Province know where you stand over there on this issue and I think it is time that we got on to the vote.

I thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker, for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House will now vote on the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

 

Division

 

MR. TULK: If the Opposition is ready to vote, we are ready to vote. Put up the Bar.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Mr. Lush, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Mercer, Mr. G. Reid, Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. T. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Ms S. Osborne, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-five ayes and eleven nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment passed.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution as amended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution as amended, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Mr. Lush, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Mercer, Mr. G. Reid, Mr. Sparrow.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution as amended.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. T. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Ms S. Osborne, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-five ayes and eleven nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution as amended carried.

On motion, resolution as amended, carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion to adjourn, I think the motion is - no, the motion is not automatic yet, is it? Before I move the adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, will you tell this member to shut up here?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Like I got told.

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn the House we should once again advise hon. members that because of the funeral tomorrow afternoon of a person who has served this House very well, Ms Clarke, we have agreed that we will not open the House until 3:30 p.m. and that the routine proceedings of the day will go on as they always go on.

I believe that we have agreed that we will recess at 5:00 p.m. because the Member for Pleasantville -

MR. NOEL: Virginia Waters.

MR. TULK: Well Virginia Waters, it used to be Pleasantville - has a function on and we have agreed that we will recess from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., come back at 7:00 p.m. and then adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, having pointed that out, I would move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, at 3:30 p.m.