The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today, Mr. Noel Tracey, Minister of Science, Technology and Commerce, Government of the Republic of Ireland. He is accompanied by Mr. Michael Bagon, Executive Assistant; Mr. John Kelly, the Principal Officer of E Commerce Division of the Science, Technology and Commerce Department; Mr. Dan Puddister, Executive Assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; and Mr. Kirk Tiller, Ireland/Newfoundland Business Partnership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the gallery today, fifty-one Grade V students from Larkhall Academy in the District of St. John's North, accompanied by: teachers, Ralph Cann and Jackie Pottle; parent chaperones, Mary Poulain, Gail Hickey, and Richard Noel; and adult supervisor, April Stokes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to inform the House that funding of $216,000 was provided by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, in partnership with the federal government, to convert Carew Lodge in St. John's into a supportive housing complex.

As you know, homelessness is a major concern throughout the country. In keeping with our Province's Strategic Social Plan, our aim is to seek long-term solutions that will not only address issues like homelessness, but prevent them. This project will provide much-needed accommodations for people who have difficulty finding affordable housing in the downtown area.

Mr. Speaker, many members of the House may be familiar with Carew Lodge, which is a 16-unit boarding house accommodation that had become incredibly dilapidated and no longer met basic fire or safety codes. The Stella Burry Foundation, under the auspices of Jocelyn Greene, purchased the property in 1999, and these funds will help them to convert the property into safe, affordable single unit rental properties.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I visited Carew Lodge and I was very impressed with the work that the Stella Burry Foundation has done to date. I was also pleased to learn that tenants have been actively involved in designing the layouts of the units to ensure that it is best suited to their needs. There is no doubt that opportunities like this allow our government to lead the way and shows our commitment to the development of supportive housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I congratulate the minister on this particular initiative. The spending of these funds on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to help the residents in this particular facility is indeed a positive step. I have some familiarity with this particular institution. I know it has had a very difficult and troubled past, and troubled history, so indeed this is a welcomed injection of funds; however, on the topic of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, it was not too long ago I spoke directly with the minister, and I had previously corresponded with the former minister, of the need of funds with respect to a certain housing project in my own District of St. John's East. I am talking about in excess of 100 units in the area of Chaulker Place. I get calls repeatedly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - that the individuals in these areas require assistance, they require help, and I would ask the same sort of initiative to be given in this instance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased with the news announced today by the minister. Carew Lodge has been a very difficult place for people to live, and very difficult for neighbors to live with. Neighbors have expressed concerns, not only about their own circumstances but about the needs of the people who have been living in that Lodge. I am delighted that the Stella Burry Foundation has taken it over and will turn it into non-profit, supportive housing for people who need it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform Members of the House of Assembly that, in order to continue the archaeological work being conducted on the Colony of Avalon project, government plans to relocate the road to the federal lighthouse in Ferryland. I am making this announcement in conjunction with my colleague, the hon. Charles Furey, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, because this project is a priority for government.

For the past eight years, Dr. James Tuck of Memorial University of Newfoundland has led a team undertaking work on this complex heritage site, uncovering the first colonization of Ferryland by Sir George Calvert, later titled Lord Baltimore, in 1620. To date, over one million artifacts have been uncovered at this large archaeological site, which draws roughly 18,000 visitors annually.

It was recently determined by Dr. Tuck that in order to continue this valuable work, excavation would be necessary under the existing road to the lighthouse, currently operated by the Canadian Coast Guard. In light of this information, a re-routing plan for the road has been determined by officials from my department, and approval has been given by the Coast Guard to make the necessary changes.

Within the next several days, government will issue $115,000 to the Town of Ferryland to construct the new road. The town, which will assume responsibility for the road, will call tenders for the work as soon as possible. Work on the road will commence as soon as the tenders are closed, thus allowing Dr. Tuck's team to continue their work. We expect the road will be completed by early July.

We have already discussed the road relocation with the landowners who will be affected by the move. They will receive formal notification from my department within the next few days and will be compensated for the use of their land. It is worth noting that without the use of this land, this project would not be able to continue.

Government supports this project because of its significant economic impact on the area and its historical benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Colony of Avalon represents Newfoundland and Labrador's largest archaeological site, and its contribution to this Province's tourism sector makes this road relocation an extremely worthwhile venture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am certainly delighted to hear an announcement that money has been allocated to enable the dig to proceed, because actually the dig would not be able to proceed this year without the road being re-routed out to the lighthouse, and work would have to stop at that dig - at a site that has increased last year 30 per cent, an increase in tourism in actual counted visits to the site from 14,000 up to 18,000. The number has been going up in a rapid fashion each year.

We expect in the 20,000-some range this year to visit that site. It is a beautiful area, a very historic part of this Province. I would hope, Minister - and I have raised this issue on the critical issue here of getting this done - that the land, too, that is needed for there would go through an amicable relationship in settling that and getting an appropriate settlement rather than following an expropriation route where there are a lot of unhappy people. People have allowed workers to go in on their land for the last several years - volunteered to go in and dig and use their land. Hopefully something suitable in line with a reasonable market value can be determined thereof.

It is certainly a world-class site. It is very historic in terms of the preservation of that. I think the archeologist, Dr. Tulk, indicated it is the best preserved site that he has ever seen, with over a million artifacts there, some of them being preserved almost to their original form.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly welcome the news, I say to the minister, and hopefully again the land issue can be resolved in the very near future.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important step to preserving our historic past and uncovering our heritage as to who we are. With the number of visitors that has been anticipated to visit that area, it is certainly an economic boost to the sustainability of the area. I commend the minister on making the funds available to ensure that the road takes an alternative route so that work can continue and more artifacts can be exposed, thereby drawing greater numbers to the area as tourists and spending more money in the local economy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise before the House today to inform hon. members of an event taking place tomorrow entitled the "Housing Export Outlook Seminar for the United States."

My Department of Industry, Trade and Technology is co-sponsoring this seminar, along with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Carol Kerley, senior trade consultant with CMHC, will be speaking at the event. In addition, local businessman Harvey Short of Nu-Way Kitchens Ltd. will be sharing his export experiences in the US market.

The United States represents Canada's largest export housing market, and has significant export potential. In fact, last year, the US housing market was worth over $16.6 billion for all of Canada.

This seminar will provide local companies which export housing and building products with important information on current opportunities in both the new housing and renovation markets in the United States.

This is an excellent time for Newfoundland and Labrador to be pursuing this market more aggressively. The US housing market is thriving, the exchange rate is favourable for Canadian companies and reductions in tariffs have reduced trade barriers.

The seminar tomorrow will focus on several areas, including an outlook study on the US housing market, which highlights trends, the hottest markets and other critical market intelligence. There will also be a focus on the renovation side of the industry, as well as information on business practices in various regions of the US, such as procurement and regulations.

We have already seen several success stories of local companies prospering in the international housing market. I am sure that many members are familiar with the Cottlesville-based company, Cottles Island Lumber/Highland Homes, which is building homes for the community of Primavera in Chile.

This is just one example of a company that honed in on a new opportunity for increasing its exports, and is succeeding as a result of its efforts.

The "Housing Export Outlook Seminar for the United States" presents another opportunity for local companies to increase their business in the international housing market.

My department is focused on helping companies in Newfoundland and Labrador access new and expanding opportunities for export growth. This is why we introduced the New England Trade and Investment Strategy a few months ago. That is also why Premier Tobin and I are leading a delegation of ten local companies to New England next week for the Team Canada Atlantic Trade Mission.

The housing market in the US has been identified by my department, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other departments as another key trade opportunity. I am confident that tomorrow's seminar will be beneficial for our Province's businesses as they continue to successfully compete in international markets with their high caliber of products and services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Any time this Province can expand our business by exporting to other countries, primarily the United States, our closest trading partner, it is good news for this Province.

Again, I am going to go out on a limb today and congratulate the minister I am critic for by saying that holding a seminar, co-sponsoring a seminar, to teach local businesses and to give them the information necessary to expand into the export market in housing through the United States and any other countries that we can export to, is good news. It is something we should be doing. It is something that I have said in this House on a great number of occasions. It is something that we should be doing more often, teaching our businesses how to conduct business in other countries, to export, to bring money back to this Province. Because we have skilled labourers, we have people in this Province who are as good as, or better, than any other companies in any other part of the world. We should be using that to promote our own economy, to strengthen our economy, because we have a lot to offer.

Mr. Speaker, not only is it good news and the minister should be given a pat on the back, I guess, but we should give a pat on the back to any and every company that is involved in this and involved in exporting from our Province to any part of the world to bring money back to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, any effort to improve the possibility of us being involved in an export market in building and housing is a good thing. However, we are still a net importer of lumber, building materials and supplies, and cracking the US market in what is, admittedly, a billion dollar business is probably very difficult to do. I think we would get an awful lot more bang for the dollar and effort if we concentrated on insuring that our own jobs and our own offshore oil industry, building an industry for the future, was carried on right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, putting our people to work in Marystown, in Bull Arm, and everywhere else in the Province where we can contribute to that great offshore industry. If the government is prepared to come into this House in six months' time and say they have done that with respect to White Rose, then I will be ready to congratulate her and her government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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. Government policy is not consistent with reference to the provision of home support services. For example, a person under sixty-five years of age, on social assistance, can hire an in-law or close relative to provide home support, but a senior who is sixty-five years of age and older cannot hire an in-law or a close relative to provide those services. As a result, an individual who is providing home care to a person from the time a person was sixty-two until they are sixty-five gets fired when the person turns sixty-five. This creates much confusion and causes a lot of anxiety, a lot of distress, and discomfort to the client.

I want to ask the minister: Why is there such an inconsistency in policy under the same government?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are other policies that are not exactly consistent as well with respect to the same issue. There are somewhat different policies with respect to the availability of home care and home support for people with disabilities than there are for other people who do not have disabilities. There are some that are slightly different at different age categories. One of the things that we are doing and is currently under review is looking at whether or not there is any continuing basis for having these differences which have historically been there and were there when the Opposition was the government, even that long ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: He can check the facts, Mr. Speaker, that these rules have been in place for a significant period of time. There are some differences for different categories and we are reviewing them right now, because of the fact that this government took the initiative of taking all of the health and community services issues and incorporating them for the first time into one department of government. Because some of these services used to be offered by the old Department of Social Services, some of them used to be offered by the Department of Health, and we have had several changes in structure in the last two years. It is now housed all in the one department and we are doing a review as to whether there is any legitimate basis for having a slightly different set of rules - not that there is an inconsistency - for either different age categories, where people have access to different levels of income, or for different status, i.e., either being a disabled person or not disabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 1989, I guess with the former government, there were a few hundred thousand dollars spent on home care. It was only in the embryonic stage. Now, tens of millions of dollars later the minister is indicating: The justification for the inconsistency is because we are inconsistent with other policies in the department. That is a very feeble response.

In certain parts of rural Newfoundland it is difficult to obtain home support workers at $5.84 an hour when they can obtain work at a crab plant for almost twice that amount. Furthermore, families like to hire someone that the client is comfortable with.

I want to ask the minister: Will he stop beating around the bush and will he move immediately to correct this inconsistency so that the age of the client will not be a factor in who gets hired?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are many services within government and elsewhere where the level of service and the availability of it is slightly different and is accessed in a different way and manner dependent upon a person's age. It is not specifically because of the age, because of course the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada prohibits any kind of discrimination or change on the basis of age. It is done because the ages that are selected happen to coincide with points in time in people's lives where they have access to different levels of income. While it is defined as an age classification, it is really an income classification.

The Opposition health critic does know that in the availability of any home support and home care service in Newfoundland and Labrador, all of it, regardless of age and regardless of whether it is a disability or not, is all income tested. It just happens to be convenient that age sixty and sixty-five are ages where people in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the rest of Canada can access certain guaranteed incomes from the Government of Canada. It is an income issue that is more disguised as an age issue rather than it really being an inconsistency of any major proportion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has nothing to do with access to the system. The minister is missing the point. It is not access, it is who you can get hired to provide that service. Nothing to do with the client and their ability to pay.

Monday I raised an example in this House of inconsistencies in blood service where in the City of St. John's you don't pay to have blood taken in your home and in Clarenville you do. Today two different government departments have conflicting policies. In fact, minister, in your very own department, social workers who are responsible for people under sixty-five are hired by your department, and community health nurses who are responsible for people sixty-five and over by your very department, they work out in districts in the same office, under the same department, and here we have different sets of rules within the same basic department.

Minister, I want to ask you, will you get your act together and resolve this problem in favour of the client who needs the care?

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

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

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of gun control in this country has precipitated a public debate throughout the land, and Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed no exception. The concept of the registration of a gun is indeed a foreign one and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are asking themselves: Why are they being controlled and directed in this way? You have heard the debate, minister. Why is it that this Province has not joined with many other Canadian provinces, many other jurisdictions in Canada, which are prepared to challenge the validity of this legislation before the courts of this land?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, our Province is not, at this time, taking any stance whether it be in favour of or opposed to the federal gun control legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the public of the Province - and this has become an active issue, shall we say, in the last few days - make their concerns known, obviously the Province will have to consider it, but up to this point the Province's position is that we are not opposed to the federal gun control registration.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: As I have indicated in the previous question, there is indeed much public debate on this. We only have to read the editorials and listen to the open line shows and indeed, receive the phone calls from our constituents. I am sure the minister's phone is ringing off the hook, as are many phones for members on this side of the House. It is an important issue, I say to the minister, and it indeed affects many ordinary everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Many Newfoundlanders find it insulting that for a cost, Mr. Minister, they must register with a government department the mere fact of the ownership of a gun. Why has your department been so silent in responding to the views and opinions of many of our citizens as they continue to voice their objection to this very ill-advised and costly registration procedure?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I realize I have not been in the department all that long, but for the short period of time I have been there it has certainly not been brought to my attention by any group in this Province of their opposition. I am aware of it through the regular media sources, the same as the Opposition parties are. It has not been officially brought to my attention. Yes, the issue of the cost of the registration is being publicly debated, but the basic principle of gun control through registration we have not taken any opposition to.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let me ask the minister a very short and direct question. What is the minister's position with respect to the cost of the registration?

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

MR. PARSONS: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, the cost of the program of registration has far exceeded what was originally anticipated by the federal government which is implementing this process. I realize the public are quite upset with the costs being incurred. It is our position that whatever has to be done by the federal government to allow the program to be implemented at the minimum cost should be the case, and if there are costs that are being incurred that were not originally anticipated I would suggest that a reasonable approach would be that the federal government should bear those costs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I would like to preamble by saying that the focus of these questions is with the intention of getting better regulations and policy regarding hazardous waste.

Minister, an official of your department said in November 1998 that the Province has no standard policy regarding the disposal of liquid waste. Your official said that while the Province does issue licences for the disposal of liquid waste, conditions vary from permit to permit. Your official said that your department had hoped to have a mechanism put in place to ensure the proper dumping was carried out at the Robin Hood Bay site within months. Eighteen months have passed, minister. Has that mechanism been put in place at this time?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regards to the hazardous waste, as the member says, there are regulated areas and these are the waste sites. However, there are many opportunities, especially in the northeast Avalon, where a person can dispose of the liquid waste. There is a facility available to them, and we have streamlined the permits and so on to make all the licences uniform throughout.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I read that question word for word. I asked that question in May of last year and there has been no legislation brought to this House to this date to improve those regulations. Let me ask a slightly varying question because you responded last year by saying that there would be legislation put in place last year. It still hasn't. If you had not delayed on that legislation, I say to the minister, we may have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The situation that occurred at Robin Hood Bay recently could have been fatal, I say to the minister. I ask the minister: What regulations and what policy do you intend to bring to this House to prevent that type of activity from happening in the future at Robin Hood Bay?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the commercial operators in this area, there is a mechanism whereby they can dispose of the hazardous waste. However, for the household hazardous waste there is a pilot project that has been in place now. This is the third year. There are opportunities for individuals to get rid of the household hazardous waste. As I have said, the City of St. John's, the town of Paradise, and the City of Mount Pearl, along with the town of Gander, the town of Grand Falls and the City of Corner Brook, have participated in that. At the end of that pilot project we then will hope to be able to put in place a mechanism whereby we can control the household hazardous waste, but for the commercial operators there is a mechanism in place. It is part of the permitting system and there is a way that they can dispose of that particular material.

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

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

We need legislation now. It is too late if this happens again and if it is fatal to human life or health. I ask the minister what guarantees he can provide to ensure that the pesticide leak that did cause concern at Robin Hood Bay recently is fully under control and will cause no further damage, either environmentally to wildlife or to human health?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, all of us have a responsibility when we have materials in houses or as business as a whole. As I said a few moments ago, there is no excuse for anybody living in the St. John's or the Avalon region to dispose of household hazardous waste in the Robin Hood Bay dump site. There is an opportunity twice a year for people to do that.

I agree that the incident at Robin Hood Bay was unfortunate, it could have been fatal, but the responsibility for all of us, in a sense, when we put things into the garbage bags, we have to be cognizant of the fact that it will do it. There is no way on earth, if you had whatever regulations in place, that any government, any city, any town, can scrutinize every garbage bag to see what is in it. The responsibility has to be with the consumer. Once the opportunity is provided for household hazardous waste, as I said, for this region, Central and the Western region, the onus is on us to maintain it into a proper place until we can dispose of it properly.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question if for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Can the minister confirm reports that among the hospital bed closures for the summer is an entire twenty-five bed unit at the Waterford Hospital which was closed similarly last summer? Will the minister confirm if that, in fact, is the plan of this government? What does he intend to do with the acute care needs of the patients who currently occupy that particular unit, given the fact that the other twenty-five bed units already have twenty-seven people in each of them?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can most certainly confirm that is not the plan of the government. The government does not plan, manage, administer the day-to-day operations of any of our facilities, whether it be the Waterford or elsewhere.

I do not know, and I call tell the hon. member, without hesitation, that I have not asked Sister Elizabeth Davis, as the CEO of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, which units, which beds, in which facilities she plans to close so that they can manage the vacation schedules of the health care professionals through the summer period.

I do know that the hon. member is one of those who has stood in this House on several occasions and said that the health care workers deserve their vacation. What we are doing is seeing the Health Care Corporation of St. John's managing the system so that they can have some of their vacation. Whether they are doing something at the Waterford, at the main General Hospital, at the Janeway or elsewhere, that I would not know and have not asked and do not intend to ask. It is not my job.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the response of the minister. The mental health needs of these acute care patients at the Waterford Hospital do not go on holiday. In the past, it has been known to happen that patients displaced by these bed closures end up in the lockup in order to get access to psychiatric services.

If there is a need for staff to go on vacation, then obviously there may not be enough staff there to look after the vacation staffing needs, to provide adequate service to the people. Will the minister take the opportunity to look into this matter and assure this House, or be in a position to assure this House, that the acute care needs of mental health patients in this Province will not be harmed by a full unit closure of twenty-five beds at the Waterford Hospital this summer?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly pass the direct question here, and a copy of Hansard, along to Sister Elizabeth so she will know the concern that is raised, but I have every confidence that the health care professionals, right from the CEO down, know more about the intricacies of this issue than any of us do. Certainly more than I do, as a school teacher who happens to be the Minister of Health responsibly for policy and funding, not for day-to-day running of the system; and certainly more so than our friend the lawyer who spends part of his time here in the House and part of his time doing other things, trying to get people elected and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I will pass the information along, and I have every confidence that the health care professionals that we have hired will have addressed the concern adequately and appropriately, and that they are not interested in playing any politics with issue whatsoever; and no more am I, quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. Minister, why did the provincial government agree to allow the Town of Paradise the right to erect a trunk sewer line along St. Thomas Line in the town when all parties involved - the Department of Environment, the Town of Paradise and the Town of Conception Bay South - agreed that the sewer line along St. Thomas' Line would not be given the green light until phase two of a receiving water study had been completed?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is an extensive study in the Conception Bay South area where there are three possible sites for a sewage treatment plant: two in Conception Bay South and one along the St. Thomas Line.

The permission that was given to the Town of Paradise to conduct that line - it is a dry line. Once that particular line is finished, it could go into the one into Conception Bay or the one along the St. Thomas Line. We have in writing at the department, from the Town of Paradise, that once the line is completed they will abide by whatever regulations are set down by the department. Whatever appropriate levels we deem necessary when the three outfalls are finished, they will look into that and there will be no raw sewage going into Conception Bay.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's department is well aware that the receiving water study is costing $250,000 and this study will be completed into the not-too-distant future. The department cannot take the position that a trunk sewer along the St. Thomas Line will not have any implication on the outcome of the study.

Phase one of the study indicated that the coastline along Conception Bay is encountering environmental problems. Minister, will you do what is right and just in this case and allow for phase two of the study to be completed, and cancel the tender call for the trunk sewer along St. Thomas Line until all findings of the receiving water study have been assessed? What is the rush?

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

MR. LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, when that particular line is finished, it will go into one of the proposed sites along Conception Bay South.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, officials in your department have been advised, especially your deputy minister, who I understand permitted this to go ahead, was advised by people in the department that this would create a problem for you and for the department. Can I ask you now, where the interference came from? so that your deputy minister - while somebody else was visiting Ontario - why your deputy minister has now given the green light? Was there any interference from people on your side of the House or anywhere else that allowed for this to take place? Where did the interference come from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely not. The assistant deputy minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: The assistant deputy minister, Mr. Dominie, met with the people from that particular town and looked at the proposal. As I said, it is a dry line, and once that line is completed it will go into one of the proposed existing sewage treatment facilities along Conception Bay South.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has been saying quite frequently that his department is working within the sealing industry to ensure that the industry works to its full potential. Aside from participating in the fisheries diversification program with ACOA on the joint agreement which, I say to the minister, is not specific to seals, I ask the minister what he is doing, or what his department is doing, to maximize the potential of this particular industry?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been four years and two month since I became Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We have addressed the sealing industry from both perspectives. One, developing the sealing industry within Newfoundland and Labrador to its full potential. I think I can take some credit for the massive sales of seal oil capsules. I will take credit for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I suggest that if anybody in the Province is not now taking them, they should, because their health will improve.

The other thing we are doing is, we have always worked with the Asian markets to try to build up opportunities for seal products into the Asian markets. We can't in North America, because of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, although the Minister of Industry is now federally meeting with provincial counterparts in Atlantic Canada to try to get that act changed so that we can export products into the United States. The main concentration right now is on the Asian market. Just in the last week there were major changes in the restrictions that prevented import or export of seal products into Korea that now have opened up another market. So hopefully, if we can convince the Asian markets to import seal products, that will certainly increase opportunities for sealers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, if he is the product of what taking seal capsules does I will be very cautious about taking them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he recognizes the value of the Canadian Sealers Association and the Seal Industry Development Council? Does he accept that these two organizations are critical to the continuing work of developing this particular industry?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is not only the seal oil capsule, but it is the seal protein, and the hon. member should take some, he would have more energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Do I recognize the Sealers Association and the Development Council? Yes, I do, and I say very clearly that the sealing industry must be driven by private industry. Neither this government nor the federal government is going to subsidize, on a year-over-year basis, the sealing industry. It has to go on its own merits. The only way it is going to go on its own merits is when the sealing industry itself, the investment from the private industry, makes it happen. That is the only way we can develop a solid industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he realizes that the Canadian Sealers Association has no more funds coming in from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for its core funding and that it will have to close its doors within a couple of months?

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of it. If I were to give the Sealers Association some advice, I would go out to major companies in Newfoundland and Labrador which are making a major investment in the fishing industry, which are quite capable of paying the Sealers Association's rent on an annual basis.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he is prepared to provide some funding from the provincial coffers to help to keep this sealing industry alive?

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

MR. EFFORD: Not until I am convinced that organizations or companies in Newfoundland and Labrador, which are involved in crab, making multi-millions of dollars, which are involved in turbot processing, involved in herring and all species in Newfoundland and Labrador, cannot afford to pay the rent. When I'm convinced that all of those companies cannot afford to pay the rent then I will take it under consideration.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. Madam Minister, the Ministerial Panel on Education has recommended that the government double the allocation of guidance counselors allocated to school boards. This recommendation certainly has been put before this government before, in particular in the Canning Report in 1996. Are you now prepared to implement that recommendation, and when will you do it?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Welcome back.

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

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations contained in the Ministerial Panel's report are all very positive recommendations and we are looking at all of them very closely. We have accepted all of them in principle, as I said at the launch of the report. Having said that, we are moving very quickly on a number of them; however, we are putting in place an implementation committee to look at those recommendations that it will take some time for us to implement.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: I take it then, Madam Minister, that the guidance councillor allocation will not go into effect for many years to come. We have heard that recommendation, we have heard it before. The report gives a three-year cost estimate for implementing the panel's recommendations. Why do the Estimates not include what I would think would be about the $5 million it will cost to double the allocation of guidance councillor? Isn't it a fact, minister, that you are once again paying lip service to this key recommendation in the panel's report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

I ask this to the President of Treasury Board. I have been getting a number of calls to my office recently concerning contract employees and temporary employees with the government. Over the past number of years it seems that government is certainly using the process of employing people through contracts rather than long term. Can the minister tells us why that process is being utilized with government? There are other people I have had calls from that actually have been employed with government for as long as fourteen years and are still on temporary employment which affects, of course, their benefits and affects their -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - pensions and other benefits. So would the minister consider also - because I only have a minute left to ask the question - or put some kind of a program in place that once -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Will the minister consider putting a program in place that once an employee has been on temporary for, say, three years, that they would automatically become permanent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the member opposite, I think if you were to poll public sector people in this Province they would tell you themselves that this is the first bit of stability they have had in the workforce for years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been some questions in the last couple of days by the Leader of the Opposition in the House referring to a Freedom of Information request to the Government of Canada with respect to the in-feed. For clarification for everybody in the House, I'm sure that if there are further questions in the coming days they too would like to have the information, so I will table the information that was received so that (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS the people of Labrador have endured a shortage of personal care facilities for seniors in Labrador;

AND WHEREAS both the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board and the Labrador Health Board have highlighted concerns with regard to this type of facility for seniors in Labrador;

AND WHEREAS there are areas of Labrador that have no personal care facilities at present;

AND WHEREAS it is understood that there is a "moratorium" denying any further investment of government funds in personal care facilities;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House support the adoption of policies that encourage the investment of federal-provincial funds into the construction of personal care facilities for communities in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I bring that resolution to the House of Assembly today for a couple of reasons. First of all, I want to talk a little bit about the demographics of Labrador and how personal care homes in this Province are proportioned. Today we have eighty personal care facilities across the Province and we have only one of those facilities located in Labrador. It is a twenty-bed facility that operates out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and it is a fine facility, as the other seventy-nine across the Province are, in terms of providing services to seniors in communities.

As most of you will know, when we talk about personal care homes we talk about homes that provide level I and II care to our elderly people in society. It is designed to meet all of their needs in a residential environment, whether those needs be physical, psychological, emotional or spiritual, and we have been able to do that. I feel that, as a government and as a society, we have certainly strived to be able to meet the needs of our aging population across the Province. We have gone out of our way on occasion to be accommodating to

We have gone out of our way on occasion to be accommodating to our seniors in society and to be able to meet the different aspects and needs that they have. We have certainly concentrated our efforts in that area to a large degree.

We have also, over a period of time, encouraged the private sector to be able to build on infrastructure within our society to meet the needs of seniors and our elderly people. We have encouraged this not only in the private sector but also in the non-profit sector, in terms of asking groups and organizations to assess the needs of seniors within their region and be able to adapt programs and services that would meet their needs and the demands that they have at that particular time.

Labrador communities, I guess like all communities in the Province, traditionally have cared for seniors within their own families. In most cases when seniors have decided that they can no longer maintain their own homes, or are no longer in the physical condition to maintain their own homes, they have certainly been welcomed by family members and cared for very well by family members over many generations, and still to this day in a lot of cases. As the economic climate of the Island of Newfoundland improved we saw more people going into the workforce. A lot of women who primarily would stay at home and be the caregivers for family started entering the workforce, therefore leaving a gap there for seniors whereby they needed to have facilities that were independent, that they could be on their own and provide for themselves with minimum support mechanisms. As a result of that we saw personal care homes being built all across the Province, in some cases by government, in some cases by the private sector, by non-profit groups, by charitable donations, by grants from both provincial and federal agencies that have allowed them to do this.

I guess we are reaching that same time frame within Labrador, where we see the economy of Labrador improving. We see more and more employment being created in communities, and as a result of it we see more and more of the primary caregivers in the family, traditionally the women, entering the workforce and therefore not being able to take on the same responsibilities as they would have traditionally.

What we also have in Labrador are seniors who want to maintain a level of independence within society and also be able to live in the communities or within the region that they would have traditionally grown up in. As the situation is right now, they are unable to do that. They are not being given the option of having residence in a home or in a facility within their community or even within the region of Labrador. That luxury has not been afforded to these people. It is rather unfortunate, because we have cases where a lot of our elderly are still in good health but are not able physically to maintain their own homes, especially in the kind of climate that we have in Labrador, with the long winters, the heavy snowfalls and so on. They are not able to maintain their property and their homes in a manner that would be acceptable to them. Therefore they look for alternatives. Personal care homes have been that alternative in our society. It has been the alternative that has allowed the independence of seniors to be able to still continue on with the routine of their lifestyle but in an environment that provided them with the assistance that they needed.

That is what we want to offer the people of Labrador. One of the unfortunate things that I have discovered in meeting with the Battle Harbour Assisted Living Corporation and also with the Labrador West Seniors Building Committee - which are two groups right now in Labrador who over the last two to three years have put proposals forward to various government agencies in terms of looking for financial investment into having facilities like this constructed within their area - is that they have been met, I guess, not with a great deal of support. That somewhat concerns me, because it seems that the general perception is that there are enough personal care facilities within the Province to meet the need on a provincial basis.

While that may be true, that isn't, geographically, distributed properly in my mind. That is why I asked today that this exemption be made for Labrador. Because as you know, we have eighty personal care homes within the Province, fifty of them which are in the Conception Bay area and the St. John's area. While there may be a surplus of beds or facilities within that demographic region of the Province, it is certainly not true for Labrador. In Labrador today, as I said, we have one personal care home that accommodates twenty residents. Therefore, that is the only service that we can offer to these people.

Today what I am asking is that the members of this House recognize the extreme importance and the need that presently exist in Labrador with regard to these facilities, and that they also encourage agencies such as HRDC, for instance, which traditionally, years ago, would have invested grant money into the construction of personal care homes within the Province. I won't cite cases here, but I know a number of homes that received the financial assistance that was necessary at the time from an agency like HRDC to be able to do this. Also, from ACOA, they have a number of grant programs that are designed to meet the social and economic needs of communities within our Province. Traditionally, they would have invested money into those types of facilities, but today they are more reluctant to invest simply because of the number of facilities that we have around the Island of Newfoundland.

What we are saying is that the need does exist in Labrador. There isn't a surplus of facilities in that particular region, but there is a desperate and growing need for our seniors in all regions of Labrador. We would ask that this House give its support to requesting agencies like this to invest in this type of facility for Labrador. We don't think it is right that they renege on this responsibility. Because it is not only the social aspect of serving seniors within Labrador, but it is also the economics of it. I mean, this is a viable economic alternative. These groups have prepared feasibility studies and business plans that proved the economic viability, that it is an investment that is worth making, that it is done not only for now but for the long-term in terms of the regions and the areas that it serves.

So there is a certain amount of economic benefit that is derived from these types of investments and these types of initiatives. I refer to the proposal completed by the Battle Harbour Assisted Living Corporation. These are individuals who have gone out and, through grants from charitable organizations and through grants from other provincial and federal agencies, have completed feasibility studies in the area, have completed business plans, have done needs assessments, and have completely and utterly covered every single base that needs to be covered in terms of proving the viability economically, and the need socially, of doing a project like this.

In Labrador West, the same is true. The Labrador West Seniors Building Committee up there - I met with a few of them on my last trip, Janice Barnes and Dianne Gear and those people - for two years now have been putting proposals into the system and not been getting the response that they want in terms of the finances that they need to be able to implement these projects.

As people know, the demographics - and the member opposite would know, it is his district - of communities of like Labrador West is changing. Seniors are staying. They are making it their lifelong home. In order to stay in communities like this and retire there they need to be able to have services available to them. This is one of the services that they, as a community, want to provide. The same thing is in my district, in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The individuals there, people like Isabelle Rumbolt and Barbra Rumbolt and Bonnie Rumbolt, all these people have committed so much time and energy into doing this as volunteers within their region because they see the importance, the necessity and the need that is not being met out there in society. I think we have a responsibility to encourage this and to assist them in any way that we possibly can in meeting the goals and objectives that they have, because they are looking at the long-term care of their region.

I think that in a lot of cases too, in addition to considering the economics of doing these types of initiatives and these types of investment in the infrastructure, we also have to look at the social aspect of it. One thing is the independence that is achieved by seniors, because you know the transition cannot be an easy one, and it must impact tremendously upon the lives of people who feel absolutely fine in their health but are physically unable to do for themselves the way they always have. Can you imagine the trauma of moving from your own home into another region of the Province, into an institution or facility that quite often you are not even ready to go into? You have to be able to afford people options, and that is all we are asking in Labrador.

We have long-term care homes, both in St. Anthony and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but they serve the long-term care needs of our region. We have a long-term care facility in my district, in Forteau, which we are presently expanding this year to meet the long-term and chronic care needs of the people in that region, and in the district hopefully over a period of time, but we are talking about two classifications of care for people in our society. We have to be able to ensure that we can afford that type of care to all of them.

These past two years certainly have been an experience for me in dealing with families in Labrador who went through the traumatizing experience of finding placements in homes for their loved ones, and it has been very difficult. I can refer to a number of cases where seniors have been living within the family unit, and some of these are not always personal care but some of them require long-term care. They also require long-term care as well, and in those cases it has put continuous stress on the family unit and has impacted the way in which other family members have been able to live their lives and carry out the normal business that a family should.

So sometimes there is a lot of stress and a lot of strain being put on families and we have to be able to give assurances to people. We have to try and alleviate the burden as much as possible for people out there in our society. We don't need to have our seniors wondering and worrying day after day where they are going to go or where they are going to find the care that they need. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in this day and age it is very unreasonable to expect people -

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: It is unreasonable to expect that these people in Labrador should have to move all over the Island portion of the Province in their older age, in the last remaining years of their lives, to seek the kind and type of care that they need. I certainly don't wish that for the people of my district or the people of Labrador. That is why I come today to the House of Assembly to ask the support of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, in encouraging agencies and groups out there, within our Province and federally, to offer their support financially to having facilities like this put in Labrador to service the desperate need of our elderly people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to have some comments too on this particular resolution. I certainly understand the needs, not only in Labrador but in the entire Province, in terms of personal care homes. We have actually a mess in the personal care industry in our Province. I am sure, and I hope, that the minister will get this ironed out. Now there is an extra $1.3 million put into funding this year in terms of subsidies, but they are operating at $925 a month, those subsidized homes, and that is insufficient to be able to continue to operate. There are dozens of homes around this Province which cannot survive on the amount of money they are making. Twenty-five per cent of the subsidized beds have gone out of existence in these last few years because people were at the brink, they couldn't fill their beds and they couldn't operate their facilities. People out there today are building new facilities, new personal care homes, privately funded facilities, modern ones that are more enticing for people to go into. Older ones that they want to expand and do things, they have to meet regulations: put in fire sprinkler systems, fire safety doors - you name it - the standard things that we should have in a home, but there is no help in the cost of those particular areas. We cannot differentiate between the Burin Peninsula that needs personal care homes, or Labrador that needs personal care homes, or any part of our Province. We have to treat all parts of our Province equally in terms of funding that is going to deal with personal care homes.

I will say that I am supportive of whatever basic policy - if there are going to be federal-provincial initiatives that are going to help everybody - but it should not be done until such a time as we have put our personal care industry in this Province in order and we have addressed the underlying problems that are there today. You just cannot continue it. We have to have a policy from this department dealing with the industry before we pump money in anywhere. We cannot support a resolution that is going to endorse - we are not going to do it; it would be irresponsible to do it - such a resolution without having a policy that is going to govern the existing state of personal care homes in our Province.

We have seen numerous reports, and I have read documents that go back into the eighties, on long-term care - nursing homes, personal care homes, on home care. We just received a document a little while ago on home care, and the problems that are encountered there. I think we are only wasting our time here to say that we should pick out an area in this Province and throw hundreds of thousands of dollars into it, to put a home there. If Southern Labrador needs it, it should be looked at as a priority, if it is the Burin Peninsula, if it is the Southwest Coast, if it is Burgeo, or wherever it is. We cannot get into, in this Legislature, endorsing single, segmented parts of this Province. We have to treat everybody where the need exists.

This is what this resolution is intended to do, single out. While the need could be there, I am (inaudible) opposed to it until such time as this minister comes forth with a policy that is going to deal with the existing problems that are there. Twenty-five per cent of the beds are gone out of existence in the last four or five years. They cannot survive the cost there.

We don't support it - I will state that emphatically for the record - we don't support it at this time. We want to see such time as an appropriate policy comes forth from this department to deal with it. I have asked since the Budget: What about the $1.3 million? How will that be spent? They said: We haven't decided whether it is going to be to help the subsidies for those that are existing, or in new subsidies.

I know that people who have built all those private homes out there, unsubsidized bed, are saying: W we need money. We need to get subsidy for these. We cannot operate them without it.

The personal care home are operating - history shows it. In the last four or five years, 250 beds, approximately, gone out of existence because they can't make ends meet because of vacancies, and other.... Modern ones are coming up and squeezing them out. There is a problem, and the minister has to address this.

In addressing this problem - I know he is passing on some advice for closing to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, but he has to address this problem. It lies right on his lap of dealing with this problem here with personal care homes. He has to do it. He wants a blank cheque here now - this resolution does - to throw federal-provincial money out into an area without looking at needs in other areas of the Province. He is the minister for Newfoundland and Labrador. He has to look at all the needs on a universal basis, and if the priorities end up higher in Labrador then that is where it should be. If they end up higher down in Burgeo, or down in the Burin Peninsula, wherever it is, in any part of the Province, that is where it should be.

There are certain areas in this Province that have a saturation of personal care homes, and there are certain areas in this Province that are under served in terms of personal care homes. We have to do an analysis; we have to look at a departmental response, and we are lacking any concrete policy in dealing with caring for people here in our Province.

I will add that personal care home are the cheapest form of care for people in this Province. This Province spends only a few thousands dollars a year per person to care for someone in a personal care home. If you had twenty-four hour care in a home, it would cost $50,000 to $60,000 a year, even though there is a cap that limits it to roughly $2,800 to $2,900. I think when you get your contributions and so on, it is somewhere around $2,200 to $2,300.

Nursing homes cost in the vicinity - some cost as high as $5,000 per month and more but there is a contribution by the individual and that brings it down, the sum, to an average of a little over $4,000 per month, about $50,000 per year. Others, one of the cheapest ones here, was at a cost of around $2,900 per month, one of the cheapest here in the city. That is about some $30,000-some per year. They are expensive.

Personal care homes provide an invaluable service. This government is getting a bargain, and they are allowing them to go over the brink into bankruptcy or into receivership, going out of business or selling out, because government has sat back for the last number of years and done nothing about it. It is time to do something. I welcome the member to bring back - we could very well possibly support one after we have seen a policy directive on it.

We know that the need is there, and in particular too in Labrador. There are parts of Labrador, especially the Labrador City area, for example, that does not have an aging population, does not have a high per cent of older population, and there are other parts that have a need there. I don't deny the need is there and something needs to be done to address the need, but it has to be done under a policy that applies all over the Province and it has to be done, I think, very quickly. We haven't been getting a response.

I have been calling for this for the last number of years. My colleague for Conception Bay South has been addressing this topic a number of times here in this House. People have sat in the galleries who are operating those personal care homes. I have met with people under the association; I have attended their AGM.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I said no. I can't support it, not that I am opposed to the intent of the resolution - I am not prepared for that - but until such a time as this minister comes forward with a policy to address personal care homes. We are lacking vastly. We just can't single out and toss things out here and there and say we are going to support something because there is no rationale to it. I am not denying the need. In fact, I am sympathetic to the need, to be honest with you. I am very sympathetic to a need there, but I am not sympathetic enough to say - until we get the mess cleared up on personal care homes - that we should endorse throwing public money into private personal care homes until the problem is resolved here on a universal basis.

I am a strong supporter of private enterprise, a big believer in it. I started off in a private business, right from scratch, with nothing but a loan from a bank. I spent over twenty years in it, so I know a small amount about private business. I am no expert on it but I do know a small amount about private business and the cost of starting and operating a business. I do know a lot of people in the personal home care business and I have talked with them, people in non-subsidized ones, in subsidized ones. I have met with numerous ones, as I have indicated. I have attended AGMs. I have talked to people. I have raised this issue in the House many times and, as I said, my colleague has, and we haven't had any changes or any movement.

To be honest with you, I think that the new minister will move and do something on personal care homes. I am expecting something will happen in the next while. I wouldn't mind seeing this resolution coming back again. Then we may be able to render a different decision at that time, when we see what is in the cards; but at this point, as I stated, I am not going to bother to amend it, to be honest with you. I don't think it will serve a purpose there because to amend it until such time as we have the policy, I don't see the relevance of that. I doubt if we are going to get support enough to support it anyway. I won't waste the time of the House to do that.

I am looking forward to something happening. It hasn't happened since Budget day. We are back in budget now back in March, six weeks ago, and we haven't had a response. I did call your deputy minister just to find out how it was going to be versed, and after that I called him to see what has happened to the $1.3 million. Has a decision been made? It hadn't. I haven't called since, that was just a month ago, and I am sure still no decision has been made. I did indicate to her, when I spoke to her, I say to the minister, that I think you should consult all the stakeholders out there. There is an association that was officially in place; it has very few members. There is a new association that has the bulk of the members now, and they have taken over because of whatever reason. Whether it was lack of activity or whatever has happened there, they formed active - I must say, I met with them. I met with just about everybody over the last few years in this industry and I know a little bit about it, but it is privately run homes, and until we have a clear, distinct policy, I think it would be irresponsible for the minister and this government to endorse this policy, to endorse this resolution here in the absence of policy to deal with. It is just not a responsible thing to do.

It is nice to support a particular area of the Province that has a need, and there are other parts of this Province that have a need. I think the resolution probably should have been Newfoundland and Labrador, to be honest with you. I would not want to stand up and say one for Ferryland or one for the South Coast. I think it should be a universal one, Newfoundland and Labrador, but I still would not support it even if it was Newfoundland and Labrador because we do not have a direction there.

I think the minister is going to come forward - I believe they are going to come forward - with some direction on this and maybe it will get defeated, brought back here this fall when we see what the policy is, what government is going to do with those personal care homes; because anybody who is not serving an area that has these may not fully understand what is happening. I will just briefly mention a couple of things about it. Some of these people who started this industry thirty years ago went out and had those homes; they were subsidized beds. Many of them were in that business thirty years. They are at wit's end. They have an overdraft at the bank. They cannot go on, they cannot expand, they cannot renovate, and in certain conditions there are big costs. They have to fund that out of their pocket when they are getting $915 a month to feed, to house, to pay for a building, to pay for a staff and look after people. How many people can afford to look after people and all their needs for $900 a month?

Accountants have shown that it is considerably underfunded. I think accountants have shown that it should be what? I will ask my colleague from Conception Bay South. I think $1,300 and something, was it, was a figure that was used?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It should be. So that is basically one there.

We have a funding problem with current ones. There is a problem with current ones in funding of that, and certainly we have to address that. I am concerned about it.

I am not going to waste any more time on this issue, but I just want to state emphatically that I am sympathetic in getting the problems resolved with seniors in our Province. They are not getting resolved to my satisfaction. Where there is an absence of government policy and direction in that, we have to see something before we throw money at the problem, and public money, because now many private ones have sprung up all over this Province. They have sprung up in many parts of this Province.

My district and outside, everywhere, there are unsubsidized beds out there. They have gone up on their on initiatives, their own dollars and so on, and we have to be very careful how we tread because we do not want to be committing public money in the absence of direct policy that is going to help these people in the long term.

On that basis, I oppose that and certainly hope that the minister will move expeditiously to resolve the overall problem with personal care homes in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion put forward by my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in her resolution for support for personal care units in Labrador.

I heard the critic of health, the Opposition member, speak on - unless it was a resolution for the Province; but in many case, as we have found out, many times there has been infrastructure money put in where facilities have been built in certain parts of the Province and certainly, because of where we live, many times not getting a fair shake, that when Coastal Labrador has applied for such a facility we are told that funding is no longer in place. We in Coastal Labrador certainly take pride in our seniors and believe that they have a right to a way of life, to personal home care, that a lot of seniors in other parts of the Province have taken for granted for quite some years.

Without the help of the federal and provincial governments, because of the high cost of living, the cost of diesel power, the cost of home heating fuel, Coastal Labrador, my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in her riding and in my riding are at a big disadvantage. Certainly when people go out there and have to borrow a large amount of money and pay back three and four different agencies, by the time they pay back their creditors they find they do not have enough money to run a personal care home in Coastal Labrador.

My mom is eighty-two years old. She lives in good health at the present time in the community of Labrador, a woman who became a widow at a very early age and raised her family. When the day comes that my mom needs health care or a place to go, a personal home care, I believe that she should have that opportunity. Not that my family won't look after her, but there are many senior citizens in Coastal Labrador that do not have the opportunity.

When you look at Coastal Labrador, many people cannot speak the English language. Yet they are taken and sent to different parts of the Island, or to Goose Bay, away from a way of life that they have had, and traditional foods. The families who live on a very small income cannot afford the expensive airfare to fly to Goose Bay or to the Island to see their people. I take the opportunity to visit seniors from Coastal Labrador who are in personal home care facilities here on the Island. One of the first things they talk of is home, of having to live in a place where they are complete strangers, with a different way of life.

I fully support the resolution put forward by my colleague as it pertains to personal care facilities in Labrador. Certainly, I can say that without the cooperation and assistance of both the provincial and federal government these facilities will never become a reality. What is far more important, and probably a sadder situation, is that the seniors in Coastal Labrador will never enjoy the benefits that most seniors in other parts of this Province have.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before that anyone who goes on in great length certainly doesn't score high in my books. Again, I just want to say that I fully support the resolution put forward by my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, because I know all too well of the seniors who live in isolation and isolated communities. I fully support her resolution.

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

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

I certainly support the concept of the resolution, but as I go through my comments on the resolution itself I would beg to differ on some of the ways that maybe things should be done.

I would like to start off just by talking about our history. In the past we didn't really have the ability, or the necessity in some cases for personal care homes, because families provided it. Unlike the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I don't really believe that today people are not able to provide that many times to their parents because of the economics of our area where job opportunities are opening up. I think it is driven more by necessity, by the high cost of mortgages, by the high cost of education and the cost of living increases that people, out of necessity, have to go to work. Not as an option that they choose many times for both spouses to be working outside the home, but in order to meet the day-to-day obligations that they have. As parents, they are forced to work outside their homes in order to provide for their own well-being and that of their children.

The dynamics of all Labrador are changing. In Labrador West it has certainly changed dramatically over the past few years. There was a time when people looked at Labrador West as being the rich area of the Province that did not rely upon government funding for anything. The companies that were in the area provided everything that was required and everything that was needed whenever the occasion arose. That today is not the case. The companies have shunned their responsibilities in many aspects of the community, and now the people with the lack of opportunity for employment in the area, with the high unemployment rate, people are dependent upon government to step in and alleviate certain conditions, the same as they do in any other part of the Province. So things are changing.

As time goes by, and as the community of Labrador West ages, then the people in the community age as well. What is happening in many cases today is that at one time, not too long ago, as people retired it was automatic that they left the area and moved elsewhere, many times returning to the Island portion of the Province or to Nova Scotia, or to Europe where a lot of people originated from as well. I would say that today that is not the case. Indeed many people are retiring and staying in the area.

I was at two retirement parties in the last six months just from the Iron Ore Company of Canada alone. In October there were 143 retirees, of whom approximately over one hundred will remain in the area. Friday night past I was at another retirement party where seventy-two retired, and the majority of them intend to remain in the area. That is how we are evolving as a community, and as we evolve as a community in this sense we need the things that other communities need as well.

I agree with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the member from the North Coast that we have to make exceptions for Labrador because many times in the past Labrador has not received its fair share of any of the things that are provided by government. The cases that we can use to point that out are endless. I think without an exception being made for Labrador we will always be doomed not to receive our fair share. With the numbers that were pointed out by the member who brought this resolution forward, out of a total of sixty personal health care facilities in the Province and one of those being in Labrador, I think that speaks well to the point that we are neglected in this area. Something has to be done, a special allocation has to be made, to rectify the differences that have occurred over the years.

For most people - I know in Labrador West, for example - when they are in a situation where they need personal care then many times that means getting admitted to the hospital and spending the remainder of your days in the hospital on the geriatric ward. That, I am sure you and all members of this House will agree, is certainly not the proper way, not the respectful way or the desirable way that most seniors would like to end out their final days after contributing their entire lives to improving the society that we live in.

There are cases with home care in this Province - I know of one case where a couple from Gander, married over fifty years with no children, where the wife ended up in one institution and the husband ended up in another, and that is where they remained until their death. That is totally unacceptable in this day and age, for a couple to be married over fifty years with no children to look after them to end up in different institutions, and that is where they finally exhausted their last days on earth. That is a deplorable condition.

I know that in the group that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair talked about in Labrador West, the seniors' group there, that Rick Hiscock, Margie Butt, Joan Stamp and others have put a tremendous amount of work into, they have identified the need. They have identified what is needed. They have identified a process of how it should be done. They did a survey in the area, a very detailed survey, and they know what is required, but the funding is the problem in order to make it happen. Funding has to be made available in order for things like this to take place, to meet the needs of the residents of the area.

I would also like to say that I am not against private enterprise, by no stretch of the imagination, but I do believe sincerely that government has a role in providing certain things in our society. I think that personal care homes should not be left to the whims of a bottom line profit margin. I don't believe that best suits the needs of the people who require home care in this Province. I think it is a responsibility of government to be the driving engine towards making these things happen. A person should not have to rely upon home-care-for-profit in order to have their needs taken care of, because when that happens it is business as usual and the bottom line always dictates what happens within the operation. That is not to say that there are not some good private care homes being run, but I think when that does happen there has to be very strict regulations and those regulations have to be enforced strictly.

When we talk about going back again to the exceptions being made for Labrador, I certainly support that and I certainly support any initiative by any agency, by any government, federal, provincial, municipal or whatever, that can make this happen. Because the need is there and it is going to get greater. The need is going to increase as time goes by. Like I said, in Labrador West in particular I can see the need increasing substantially, whereas one time, not too many years ago, there was absolutely no need whatsoever. That need now is growing increasingly year after year. I'm sure that in the coastal areas of Labrador, in Goose Bay, and all over in general, where there is one home care facility, personal care facility in the region, it does not adequately meet the needs of the residents of Labrador.

It is not the same. If you look at it from a geographical point of view much of Labrador, at the present time, is geographically, physically, separated from the other regions. It is not like if you divide up the Province. With the fifty-nine that are located on the Island, I am sure that there are not too many geographical regions that do not have a personal care home of one form or another. Whereas one for Labrador is certainly not adequate and it certainly needs to be addressed.

I support the resolution as presented by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and I look forward to exciting changes being brought in by the minister as well that will better address the concerns of people who require home care in the Province and personal care. We look forward to that happening.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to say I thank the member for bringing forward this resolution and I certainly support it wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

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

If the member speaks now she ends debate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with great interest to the responses to the resolution. First of all, I would like to thank the words from my colleague for Torngat Mountains and his support in this.

I stand here and, to a certain degree, I take offence to the view and perspective of the member opposite, the critic for health. Because I think it is wrong that people in Labrador should have to wait - in terms of addressing the need of personal care for its residents - until all facets of health care and residential care for seniors have been addressed in this Province. That is the neanderthal perspective, I guess, that people in Labrador have had to endure for many generations. I sit here today and take great exception to having it pointed out to me once again in this House of Assembly.

My grandfather, a man who was illiterate, but a great fisherman who fished in Labrador all his life, in his eighties had to leave because he required personal care. From that day until he died, just this past year at the age of ninety-four, he lived in three different personal care homes around this Province. The last home he was in was not a personal care home, it was actually an institution.

It was very difficult for us as a family because we could not get in our cars and drive to see him on Sunday afternoons as most people in this Province have the luxury to be able to do. We could not visit him on Christmas Day, or at Easter, or on his birthday, because in many cases this required large sums of money that family members did not always have available to them to be able to share in the last years of his life.

This is an issue that is of great importance to people in Labrador. It is important because they, too, care for their elderly, their seniors, their parents and their grandparents. It is about ensuring that they also have the options of personal care available to them as do other people in this Province.

I cited my case in my family with my grandparents, and I am not an exception. This has been the case with many families. I have seen it in my friends, in my neighbors and in my constituents, the great deal of hardship that they experience, because when their elderly people go out to personal care homes in other areas of the Province in lots of cases it is the last that they ever see of them. That is a very unfortunate reality to be faced with.

The critic for health, the member opposite, indicates there are problems that the minister and this government should address with regard to senior care. I think we realize that and we have addressed and are continuing to address a number of the issues that face seniors within this Province, but the resolution that I brought forward today is to service a group of people within this Province who are in desperate need of services.

If you were to go out and ask for a policy, as the people opposite are asking, they are asking that anybody in this Province be able to access funding through government agencies and departments to build personal care homes.

Mr. Speaker, I think that would be met with a lot of opposition from the general public; because it was only a year ago, on the West Coast of Newfoundland, in the Corner Brook area, when government agencies gave out funding to people - private companies - to build personal care homes. Other homes in that area were very upset, because they had vacancies that they were trying to fill. They did not want someone giving out government money to compete with them and their vacant beds which they were trying to fill. That is a whole different ball game.

What the members opposite are proposing is that we invest in all homes, that we make it more competitive, that those people who are out there in this Province with a surplus of beds today would have even more surplus. What we are asking is that Labrador be looked at for the need that exists there today, and be able to address that need as it is.

I am very disappointed with the perspective that has been taken, because a group that indicates they want to solve problems of seniors in this Province - well, one place they can start is by trying to solve the problems of seniors in Labrador.

MR. TULK: Who is that?

MS JONES: The members opposite.

MR. TULK: Who are the members opposite?

MS JONES: The critic for health.

MR. TULK: The Tory caucus.

MS JONES: The Tory caucus is not supporting this resolution, and I think it is a very Neanderthal approach to how things are being done. It is the way that Labrador has been treated historically, and I can't believe that these people would stand here today, look me in the face and endorse that once again over and over, because the people of Labrador are tired of it. They come here today to ask the members of this House to give their support, to offer them their support in trying to meet a desperate need in their communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have to accept the fact that the aging of our seniors is not an issue that will disappear. It is not going to disappear in Labrador, but it is one that has a changing need and alternative demands, and changing geographics, which is what we are experiencing today. This is the case in Labrador.

I can only conclude by saying that I would like to ask every member in this House to stand in support of the seniors of Labrador, to support this resolution, recognizing the tremendous stress and strain that families and elderly people have placed on them in all regions of Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those opposed, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion, the ayes have it.

MR. TULK: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; the hon. the Minister of Finance; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the President of Treasury Board; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Reid; Ms. Jones; Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. French.

Mr. Speaker, there are twenty ayes and seven nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion passed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn the House, because you do adjourn it today, I just want to inform hon. members that we will be starting at second reading of Bill 5 which, on today's Order Paper, is Order 4. We will just go down through the Orders as we come to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, we will be back at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, the House does now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.