The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome twelve students, Grades 3-11, visiting from Long Island Academy in the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The students are accompanied by their teachers, Chris Roberts and Miss Watkins, their teachers' assistant, Gleason Oake, and their bus driver, Mr. Max Slade. Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Members Statements today will be the following, and in the order that I read them: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for the District of Humber Valley, the Member for the District of Port de Grave, and the Member for the District of Placentia and St. Mary's.

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

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to mark the success of the recent Northern Lights Trade Show and Conference that was held in Ottawa from January 31 to February 3. Northern Lights is a trade Show and conference showcasing the exciting business and resource opportunities in Labrador, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavit. Mr. Speaker, this event is organized to promote business and to build partnerships with southern Canadian businesses and encourage them to get involved with our people.

The conference had over 500 delegates in attendance and featured a multi-industry trade show with over 141 exhibitors, including a wide range of organizations, private businesses and all levels of government from Nunavut, Nunavik, Labrador and Nunatsiavit. I was very pleased with the positive attitude that was displayed about doing business in Canada's North. The potential opportunities existing in Labrador and across the Arctic are more evident than at any time in our history. One of the highlights of the event was a Gala Dinner that was hosted by the Woodward Group of Companies in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They offered up a runway show case of seal skin products promoting a cultural industry and displaying some of the most elegant designs of seal clothing ever fabricated.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the organizers and the participants for their success in this lucrative event that will lead to many benefits for Labradorians and Northern Canadians.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in recognizing the success of the conference and congratulating the Chambers of Commerce in the North that were involved in organizing this event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The dawn of 2008 saw the passing of an individual whose life had touched many in my District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and the Province as a whole. On January 13, 2008 Sgt. Reg Gulliford, formerly of Buchans, passed away after a courageous battle with cancer.

Sgt. Gulliford had known more than one battle in his short lifetime of forty-six years. As a young RCMP officer serving in Powerview, Manitoba he was seriously injured as the result of shooting following a routine incident. His partner was killed during that incident. Following more than two dozen surgeries, 300 points of blood and many, many months of hospitalization, Sgt. Gulliford conquered the events of that tragic shooting and went on to continued service in the RCMP here at headquarters at St. John's. Reg, as he was known to most, showed everyone around him the true meaning of perseverance and determination and that a strong will coupled with a sense of humor could conquer almost everything.

As his brother-in-law said in delivering his eulogy, Reg taught us that "adversity is a hurdle, not a wall".

On January 17, 2008, a solemn procession carried Sgt. Gulliford from St. John's back to his beloved hometown of Buchans. Along the highway, dozens of police officers lined the route in every community where there is a detachment, and a final salute was delivered as a sign of affection and respect.

To Reg's mother, Bernice, his wife Lorie, his children, Courtney and Danika, his sisters and brothers, as well as his many friends and colleagues who came from all over Canada from the police force, I offer the condolences of the constituents of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and, I am sure, of this House.

To those who knew Reg, and to those who knew of him, there is no doubt that he will be remembered as a hero, a man of inspiration and example, and an icon who served as a positive role model for all he encountered.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Dr. Richard Taor on becoming the recipient of a teaching award for his contribution to the Discipline of Family Medicine of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

The award is presented in honour of Dr. Yong Kee Jeon who practiced medicine for twenty years and taught residents within the Family Medicine Program.

Besides being an exemplary physician, as demonstrated through his practice and actions, other criteria that were considered for Dr. Taor receiving this award included feedback from family medicine residents on the excellence of his teaching, his contribution to the Discipline of Family Medicine, and his participation in the teaching activities of the Discipline of Family Medicine.

Dr. Taor received the special award at the awards dinner of the Family Medicine Preceptors Meeting in Gander.

Dr. Taor was born in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England, and holds medical licence in both the U.K. and Newfoundland and Labrador. Dr. Taor has operated a Family Practice in Port aux Basques since 1977. He was Chief of Staff of the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre from 1979 to 1987, and again from 1992 to 2007. Dr. Taor and his wife, Magda, have two children.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Dr. Richard Taor on receiving this prestigious award.

All the best to Dr. Taor and his family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the MHA for the District of Humber Valley, I stand in this hon. House today to sincerely congratulate the communities of Pasadena and Deer Lake in hosting winter carnivals again in 2008. Both communities have been hosting winter carnivals now for approximately thirty years through a network of community volunteers, which is in itself a very significant achievement.

Mr. Speaker, Pasadena celebrated its carnival from February 8-18, and I commend Gary Bishop, Carnival Chairperson, and his committee for an outstanding week of carnival events. In Deer Lake, the carnival is taking place from March 7-16. I would like to congratulate Donna Chaulk and Marilyn Young, who are co-chairing the committee this year.

Winter carnivals are a significant economic generator in communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The two carnivals in my district provided opportunities for participants, visitors and volunteers to enjoy the many activities that winter has to offer in our region. These carnivals, however, are only possible through the hard work and dedication of community volunteers, support of respective councils, sponsors, and participation of residents and visitors.

Mr. Speaker, for me winter carnivals are an opportunity to participate in many activities that occur and also to meet constituents and discuss many of the issues that are important to them and their communities. I salute these volunteers for the outstanding work they do for both the social and economic well-being of our beloved Province, Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the members of this House to join me in extending our deep appreciation for the efforts of those volunteers.

Thank you.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, February 9, 2008, I was honoured to join with family and friends in wishing John and Leah Crane of Upper Island Cove congratulations and best wishes on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

Mr. and Mrs. Crane celebrated this special occasion with an open house provided by their family. More than 200 members of their family and friends came to wish them well and share in their celebrations.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of all members of this hon. House, and the viewing audience, John Crane was the Member of the House of Assembly for the former District of Harbour Grace.

I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations and best wishes to John and Leah Crane on the occasion of their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia and St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is a red-letter day in the little Town of Point Lance, situated near Cape St. Mary's, the tip of Cape St. Mary's, in St. Mary's Bay.

The family name of Careen is synonymous with Point Lance and, today, the family of Neil and Rosemary Careen, along with residents of the town, welcomes their daughter, Sgt. Elaine Careen, safely home from a seven month tour of duty in Afghanistan. Sgt. Careen served as a medic in the Kandahar area and is a twenty-two year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, having previously served in the Persian Gulf and Bosnia.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we salute, honour and thank Sgt. Careen and all our Canadian soldiers for the tremendous contribution they make as they put their lives on the line for the betterment of the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, this particular Careen family has made an outstanding contribution to the Canadian Military effort. Sgt. Careen's sister, Virginia, is also a twenty-two veteran of the force; her sister, Linda, has served for over twenty years; and, her brother Sean has served for ten years.

I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting the Careen family of Point Lance and, in particular, in welcoming Sgt. Elaine Careen safely home.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House that the provincial nominee program is fully integrated into the goals and objectives of the $6 million provincial immigration strategy. Under the management of the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism, the strategy is yielding tremendous results. As a result, the provincial nominee program is attracting more people from around the world to our Province. The number of nominations has grown by 36 per cent over the previous fiscal year.

Since the launch of the strategy, a total of 162 new nominees this year are choosing Newfoundland and Labrador as their new home. Mr. Speaker, these are highly skilled professionals who make a contribution in many different areas.

I am also pleased to note that 56 per cent of all the nominees are choosing to settle outside of the St. John's metropolitan area. These include entrepreneurs involved in small business creation in many of our rural communities.

We also see the positive contribution being made by immigrants who work to educate the next generation at our post-secondary education and training institutions. Other newcomers are active in building research capacity in support of further innovation and economic growth. In recent years our Province has attracted an average of 450 immigrants annually, and indications are that this number is increasing.

Within five years, the provincial government's goal is to triple the number of immigrants to our Province. Currently, the provincial nominee program has the occupational and skilled worker, immigrant entrepreneur, and immigrant partner categories. We support an expanded and more accessible program to realize this immigration strategy goal.

Recently, the provincial government significantly reduced application fees under the program. In the coming weeks, it will be further enhanced with the addition of two new nomination categories. These categories will open the program to international students who have graduated from our educational institutions, and it will enable existing immigrants to bring other members of their family to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are now one year into the implementation of the immigration strategy. In that period, we have established a fully staffed Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism and we are making strong improvements to the provincial nominee program. I am confident that continued implementation of the strategy will help attract and retain needed skills and talent as we realize greater prosperity in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and to say that we are pleased to see that this strategy is working, and to note the tremendous growth that has happened over such a short period of time. It is great to see 162 people coming here and wanting to make and call Newfoundland and Labrador their home.

I know, Mr. Speaker, they bring great potential and great entrepreneurial skills with them, because many of them are settled in the immediate area where I come from, and it is wonderful to see more of them coming here and creating opportunities for some of our residents.

Two of the points I want to touch on, Mr. Speaker, are the two new categories, one being the international students who have graduated from our institutions, and those immigrants who are here and trying to bring members of their family in. I have had occasions in my district where people who are here had great difficulty in bringing their family members here with them, and I am glad to see this take place.

Mr. Speaker, overall, this is a great initiative. It broadens our economic opportunity, broadens our perspective of the whole world around us, and, with our declining population, I am sure it will bring other people here and hopefully many of our own residents will return home to be a part of this prosperous Province that we hope to see in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

As the granddaughter of a first generation of immigrants, I am delighted to see that we, as a Province, are moving somewhat far ahead when it comes to the recognition of the role that immigrants can play in our society; however, in consultations that I have had with the Multicultural Women's Organization of Newfoundland and Labrador, an organization that I know is well known to the minister and who has consultations with them, I know that things are not always easy, especially for women and children. Very often it is women who - women come, not always, but very often they are attached to a male partner who is the main immigrant, and the family is coming with that person who is either going to be a student or who has work identified. They are identifying many needs for women and children.

I really encourage the minister to work very closely with the Multicultural Women's Organization in identifying community support for women and children as they come here as immigrants. They have a tremendous expertise as a group of immigrant women. I think they should be seen not just as consultants but people who become very active with the ministry in delivery of programs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to update my hon. colleagues today on the steady increase in on-line usage rates by clients for our Companies and Deeds Online, or CADO, system.

CADO first came on-line in January 2005. In the three years since, a number of services have been put on-line for the convenience of clients. These services include reserving corporate names, incorporating businesses or organizations, filing annual return documents, filing notice of registered office documents, notifying change in directors, obtaining certificates of good standing and searching the registry of companies. Not only can clients conduct business at any time, day or night from anywhere in the Province, they also have the certainty that records are updated immediately and documents will arrive on time and not be returned for incomplete information.

Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that we have seen a remarkable rate of use for CADO for each corporate document type that can be filed on-line. When the Department of Government Services brought CADO on-line, clients filed almost 6 per cent of their documents with the system. In just three short years, we are now seeing over 25 per cent of documents filed on-line. In addition, there have been a steady high percentage of clients who avail of obtaining certificates of good standing immediately from their own computers. In January, 300 of 368 certificates were purchased on-line, which is over 80 per cent.

In addition to these services for corporate clients, CADO also offers search services for the Registry of Deeds and the Mechanic's Lien Registry. I am confident we will continue to see on-line use increase as we offer more services on-line. In the near future, we will digitize corporate records that exist solely in paper format up to June 2004 and we will also incorporate some smaller registries into CADO.

Mr. Speaker, one of this government's commitments from day one was improving access to e-government. I am very pleased that we are reaching this commitment in our commercial registries and we will continue to look at ways to improve on-line service for our CADO clients.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister again for an advanced copy of this particular statement and to say, I guess, it is no surprise. We know that on-line services are becoming more prevalent in our society today and anything that can be done to help residents or businesses in this Province to further their business and do it on-line on a twenty-hour hour basis, I can assure you we are in total support of it. It is good to see the tremendous increase from the time that this started and I guess our only wish is, and hopefully through the years this will happen, that more of our residents will be able to avail of such a service, and I want to commend the minister on this particular statement.

Thank you, sir.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy. It is great. I really approve what is happening with regard to the CADO system. It is definitely something that is very good for business, but a couple of cautions, while I know that it is good to have these e-services available for individuals as well under Government Services, government will always have to remember that there are going to be people who are not able to access e-services, therefore we always have to make sure that there are alternative, easily alternative methods for them to access e-services.

I think the other caution we have to look at is that people right now have some skepticism with regard to doing things on-line because of some of the breaches of security that have happened and I think they need to know for sure that when they are accessing e-services that government can give them really 100 per cent assurance that their information is safe. So just to draw that to the minister's attention.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we will be debating a motion regarding the installation of sprinkler systems at government run health care facilities. In preparation for this debate we had arranged a meeting this morning with the fire commissioner to clarify some of the issues relative to this, such as getting an update on inspections, when they were last completed, what government facilities had been inspected and so on.

Mr. Speaker, at the last minute I received a call this morning from the fire commissioner cancelling the meeting saying he had to go out of town on urgent business or business anyway and I asked him if he had been directed by the minister or anyone in the minister's department to not meet with us on this particular issue and he would not confirm or deny that that was or was not the case. So, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to her question.

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

My question is more appropriately directed to the minister. I ask him: Did he, his deputy minister, or any officials in his department ask the fire commissioner not to meet with the Opposition this morning on this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is no, I did not. What happened is that we needed information - there were two issues that we needed information on, one was Bell Island and one was Whitbourne. We needed to have a report back tomorrow for Cabinet. Cabinet is meeting tomorrow, and the Premier stated that that would be an issue that would be discussed. I am preparing a briefing note, and that's the reason why it had to be done today, and that is the reason why the fire commissioner had to go out of town.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the urgency of the fire commissioner having to complete that business, minister, but I do not understand the urgency of not taking half an hour to meet with the Opposition. He could have gone at 11:00 o'clock as opposed to 10:30. I really feel that it was instigated through your department.

Mr. Speaker, I understand yesterday –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take my direction from you. I also understand from a media scrum yesterday that they have been unable to get any statements from the Fire Commissioner's Office.

I ask the minister: Has the fire commissioner again been asked not to speak to the media on this issue?

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

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Significant problems have recently been identified in our foster care system. It has been reported that there is a 20 per cent increase in the number of children in custody and we have fewer foster families participating in the program. Foster children are being housed in hotels and efficiency units, and this combined with the lack of social workers and the increased workload of these social workers. The majority of the vacancies, as I understand, Mr. Speaker, for social workers are in the Eastern and Labrador health regions, the same regions that carry the largest number of children in custody.

I ask the minister: Why is government not doing more to fill those vacancies in those positions, especially when there is a crisis been identified in those areas?

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

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For those who would have been following last year's Budget, would remember that this government made a major commitment last year. In fact, $9 million annualized, I say, Mr. Speaker. We made a commitment last year to strengthen our Child, Youth and Family Services system by pledging, on an annual basis, some $9 million investment. Included in that investment was a range of initiatives that included recruiting social workers, social worker assistants, support staff for social workers, and a variety of other supports that would be necessary for the people working in the field. They all will be a part of a process to strengthen and to improve our Regional Health Authorities ability to be able to attract and retain the qualified, confident and capable people that we need to support children at risk in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Approximately 25 per cent of children from Innu communities in Labrador are in foster care, realizing that Aboriginal communities have unique and special issues that require more attention oftentimes than other regions of the Province, yet there is a growing shortage of social workers in that area.

I ask the minister: Does government have any plans to introduce or develop a special remuneration plan for social workers who want to work in Northern Aboriginal communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are working as a department, we are working with each of our four Health Authorities, and moving forward with a strategy development for Child, Youth and Family Services. A piece of that is looking at the human resource needs of each of our four authorities. As a part of that, human resource strategy, obviously, compensation benefits, working conditions, supports, all become a part of that overall strategy piece, I say, Mr. Speaker.

So, in addition to what we are doing in Labrador, we are doing it in all the other three authorities. It will be a very comprehensive approach to making sure, as I said a moment ago, that we have the capable, competent people that we need to support children in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the caseload has increased by 20 per cent, the number of children in care. I am wondering if the minister can tell me why such an increase and why so many children are in custody today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for everybody in this House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to fully understand and appreciate that only the children who find themselves most at risk are the children in care. Bringing children in care is a last resort. Social workers in the field have to make a critical evaluation of whether or not that child is safer in the home or safer somewhere else, and only when that kind of detailed assessment is done that very critical decision has to made about removing children.

So, I want to make sure that the notion that we have an increase in the number of children in care today versus what might be there yesterday is one that - I think, Mr. Speaker, it is critical for us to understand that that only happens as a last resort. So, any increase in the number of children in care would reflect the seriousness of things that may be happening in our communities and in some of the homes where these children are being removed from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Of course that is what we were looking to know, if the department had compiled anything that would tell us directly what some of the contributing factors might be in recent days.

Mr. Speaker, my next question to the minister is if he can provide me with the statistics on the number of children that are in custody voluntarily versus those that are there involuntary?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I will be only too glad to table for the member opposite the profile, or the status, or the data pertaining to the number of children that are in care today. I will get that for you and table it at a later moment.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my final question for the minister is regarding the voluntary portion of foster care. We have been informed that there are families that have voluntarily placed their children into foster care because of their economic situation, referring to the fact that they are on social assistance and they feel that their children are better provided for sometimes financially under the foster care program.

I ask the minister if his department has done any analysis on that and on the cost or economic implications for families that are on assistance versus those that are putting their children into foster care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, taking children into care is a decision that is not taken lightly. It is one that is not done unless careful consideration has been given to the circumstance and whether or not children are at risk or at greater risk by staying in their home than they would be being someplace else.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the families who voluntarily have their children in care go through that same kind of critical analysis of their circumstance and what might be in the best interest of their children. So when families find themselves in that circumstance in working with the social worker who is assigned to the case, obviously, between the two of them, they have made that determination that the child might be much safer and better cared for in a foster circumstance than remaining in the home, and that is when the child would be removed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked a couple of questions yesterday of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development concerning openness and accountability, and I will follow up on that today.

Aside from the Comptroller General's mention of the company SAC, which we dealt with yesterday and was reported in The Telegram story back in February, aside from that, there are other items in the Auditor General's report - as opposed to the Comptroller General - there are other items in the Auditor General's report which make for interesting reading.

Under one heading, other investments by the department, the Auditor General outlines how the minister's department, under his leadership, invested in excess of $1 million of public money in three different companies identified only as Companies A, B and C. In the case of Company A, the AG found there was no legislative authority to make the investment of $500,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

My question of the minister is: Why is your department spending public funds into private companies when, according to the Auditor General, there is no legislative authority in place permitting these expenditures?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report referenced investments in a number of companies, yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we understood that we did not have a program at the time to invest in companies. We developed a program called the Commercialization Program, as part of our innovation strategy; and, Mr. Speaker, we now have a program that is fully accessible to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We understand, we agree to some extent with what the Auditor General said at the time, and we have made appropriate changes in the intervening period so that we could deal with it.

We also understand, Mr. Speaker, that the investments that we made in companies was under the same legislative authority, the Financial Administration Act, as investments made by the former Liberal government when the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile was minister in the department that I am now in, and did exactly the same type of thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that the minister - he admitted yesterday he had a problem with communications in his department. He has admitted now that the Auditor General was right, that they spent money that he had no authorization to.

The Auditor General's report also revealed that in June of 2005 the Department of Trade and Rural Development, under direction from Cabinet, dumped another $500,000 into Company B. This money, according to the Auditor General, was again spent by the department without legislative authority. The files were missing important documentation, that Company B had contravened the subordination agreement it had signed with the department, that the firm had no tangible assets available for security to the department, and that there were no shareholder net worth statements nor company credit checks performed by the department before letting the money go.

I ask the minister: What actions has your department taken since this disclosure, and pointing out by the Auditor General, to ensure that public money, in the future, will not be disbursed until due diligence is properly done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that the Auditor General was right, that we did not have the legislative authority. I said we proceeded under the same legislative authority, the Financial Administration Act, that every government has proceeded under for, I suspect, the last thirty or forty years, Mr. Speaker.

We believe that we have the authority to proceed with the disbursement of funds to companies. When we did not have a program in place, which was the case with the three companies that I referenced, we took the appropriate action. We did our due diligence. We compiled a Cabinet paper. We went through the proper channels with the Economic Policy Committee of Treasury Board and the Cabinet process. We sought the authority and we made the investment.

In some cases, Mr. Speaker, yes, the paperwork may not have been absolutely done. There were mistakes that were made. Those mistakes, Mr. Speaker, were corrected. If he followed on, in the Auditor General's report, the Auditor General said there was no evidence of wrongdoing, just that the proper process needed to be – the process needed to be cleaned up, was basically what he said. There was no evidence of any wrongdoing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another indication of mistakes being made in a department.

We are not concerned, or the public is not concerned, with what the minister thinks is right or wrong. The public is concerned about ensuring that the department and the minister follow the suggestions put forward by the Auditor General, and does it right.

The Auditor General's report also revealed that in March, 2005, the minister's department, under direction from Cabinet, approved a $100,000 investment into a company identified as C. Again, money was transferred by a government department into private hands without the department having legislative authority. In that case, another funding agency had, in November of the prior year, 2004, already identified a multitude of problems with this firm, including misleading technical information, concerns with patents, understated project costs, and overly optimistic timelines.

My question for the minister, Mr. Speaker: What actions has the minister taken to ensure that public money, in future, is not disbursed before all due diligence is done? There are problems. What have you done to correct them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, it is awfully interesting. Last year, about this time, when we were in the middle of debate, negotiations and what have you, with a company called Petro Field Services, that we were planning on establishing out in Port aux Basques, the hon. member was insisting that we hurry along, we hurry along, we disburse the funds, we support the company and what have you, Mr. Speaker. The only reason we were holding back on moving forward with investment in that company and supporting that company was because we were doing our due diligence. We were looking for the financial information that we required, so that we didn't get written up in the Auditor General's report. Now he is here today condemning us for the very same thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it that feeble attempt at deflection indicates that the minister again has done nothing substantive to improve and ensure the Auditor General and the people that something has been done to rectify these problems.

Mr. Speaker, as critic for the department, I sought to get more information and details on these cases. My office submitted an Access to Information Request to the minister's department, asking for the names of these three companies. Now, this is the minister who told us yesterday that he is absolutely open and accountable. The department, under the direction of the minister, refused to provide us with those names pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

I ask the minister: Why are you refusing to reveal the names of these three companies which, together, have received more than $1 million of public funding?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not divulged the names for the same reason that the Auditor General did not, Mr. Speaker, and for the same reason that on April 10, 2003, when I sat in the seat that he is sitting in, and he was sitting in the seat that the Premier is now sitting in, with his Deputy Minister, Mr. John Scott, sitting next to him in a seat that the Deputy Premier now sits in, and the question was asked of a couple of companies that they had provided funding to, that had run into some problems and were written up in the Auditor General's report. The Leader of the Opposition at the time asked a question as to, if he could tell us what the names were. He said, I understand that you may not be able to.

Mr. Scott said - the deputy – and, of course, the minister didn't have any problem with it; because, if he did, he would be written up in Hansard right afterwards. In the case of the Auditor General's report on this particular company, I would be happy to share the name of the company with you privately, but the company is operating so these types of reports and the Auditor General's statements are usually masked somewhat in the terms of the name of the company because it would compromise their ability to raise capital or keep business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that the name of any company or other entity which receives public funds will become public knowledge. In fact, under every single application form by your department, Minister, it states, and I quote: The applicant hereby agrees that should an offer of financing result from this application, that offer shall include an agreement to make public the financing amount and the name of the recipient, together with the purpose and other information pertaining to the employment created.

Now, that is in the application.

I ask the minister: Why are you refusing to release the names of the companies when the companies themselves have already agreed to make that information public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member is being too cute by half, because he was a minister and he was a minister in this department. He oversaw the disbursement of funds and he oversaw press releases and what have you and the release of information to the public on investments in companies. He is right, we do have the right, and we do. Every one of these three companies, to the best of my knowledge, these three companies - there was a press release. There was a public announcement that went out when the funds were disbursed to these companies, but there is a reason that we do not deal with it in the Auditor General's report and we do not deal with it afterwards because some of these companies may, and in some cases they are - in this case - still operating. Their business has moved along. Mr. Speaker, if we were to say the names of those companies, the customers that they have and the customer base that they have developed could be compromised and our investment in the company could be compromised as well.

Now if he wants to step up behind the Speaker's chair, I will tell him who they are, but I am not doing it here in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My role here as a critic for the department is to reveal whatever information I can determine; not to find it out for my own personal information, but for the public information.

Minister, although you refuse to provide the names publicly of these three companies - and you will recall it yesterday when I talked about the SAC Manufacturing, I said that name was found by the media in a schedule C of the Comptroller General's report.

Will you confirm or deny that companies A, B and C that we are referring to here now today are also contained within that schedule C of the Comptroller General's report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand his role as critic because I sat over there, and he understands my role as minister because he sat over here. His role as critic is to try to get as much information released to the public as possible. My role as minister is do the best job I can to protect the public purse and the public interests in the longer term and that is why we are not going to release those three names because there is money potentially at risk or could be compromised in those companies by releasing the names.

Mr. Speaker, it is in the best interest of the companies, the best interest of the public of Newfoundland and Labrador and the public purse of Newfoundland and Labrador if those names are not, at this time, released. If the companies go south, no problem, they are going south just like SAC went down and we are trying to recover our money. There is absolutely no reason to worry about compromising our financial ability or the finances of the Province. In this case, Mr. Speaker, he knows that it is not appropriate to release those names; just as the Auditor General knew because the Auditor General did not release them and that is why I am not, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about companies that received government funding almost three years ago. We are not talking about confidential, secret trade documents and corporate information that might destroy or negatively impact the company. We are trying to find out which companies did you give the money to. It is pretty straightforward. We do not want to know their patents and their trade secrets. We want to know, who did you give the money to?

In fact, Mr. Speaker - maybe you can make it simple, because you do not know if those A, B and C are within the schedule C of the Comptroller General's report. Maybe, since you did mention today that you put out press releases on all these, can you tell us what dates you put out those press releases so that then we can easily go find out who they are? Why are we going through all those hoops of Freedom of Information requests when you can simply tell us what the press releases were? Will you do that, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, why did he not have a problem on April 10, 2003, with his deputy, Mr. Scott, sitting right there in those chairs, who would not tell the Leader of the Opposition what the two companies were that had not made their payments to the government, that were out $2.2 million for, and so on and so on? He would not tell us those names then because he figured compromising the companies ability to carry on, undermining their market base, undermining their ability to raise further capital in order to carry on operations so that the Government in Newfoundland and Labrador might at some time in the future be able to recover its money. He did not see anything wrong with that position then, Mr. Speaker, because it was the right position, but he sees something wrong with it today because it is a better political position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we started off this questioning yesterday. I asked the minister a simple question: Was he in tune with the openness, accountability and transparency principles espoused by the government? His answer was: I can absolutely confirm that we do, in our department, adhere to those principles, which is why every cent of money that we approve is made public. Now that is not forty-eight hours ago.

So, I will ask the minister again: Why are we having this cat-and-mouse game? Why are you being so deflective? Why are you being so secretive about this information? Why can't you simply say: Yes, we did it. This is who they were. We put out a press release on such-and-such a date. Is there some reason that you can't tell us other than the fact that you feel you might negatively impact them commercially?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, what is the member after? I mean, obviously the cat and mouse game that is being played here today is his. He is playing to the press gallery. He is hoping he might get a clip on TV this evening.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I just told him that if he wants to step up here, somewhere where I can talk to him in confidence and tell him what the companies names are – now, if he wants to be irresponsible and release those names publicly and potentially compromise the companies that we have, as he said, around $1 million in, if he wants to do that and he wants to live with that and see maybe one of those companies, as a result of that, lose a customer they are after right now or, Mr. Speaker, lose another $100,000 in financing from a private lender, a chartered bank or something like that, then he can go and do it. I am not going to be that irresponsible but if he wants to he can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seniors and others who need home care in this Province were very disappointed yesterday to hear the Minister of Health and Community Services say that there will be no contingency fund for people who desperately need home care while the Province is in the process of planning for a more equitable financial assessment tool to assist with qualifying for home care. Nearly 40 per cent of people who apply for home care cannot access it even though they need it. The government ties people up in so much red tape that very often they give up even asking. They just don't have the energy or the time to continue the fight when they are desperately in need.

I am asking the Premier: Will this government give a timeframe for implementing the new financial assessment tool that is more specific than saying, as the Speech from the Throne says, government will advance plans to implement equitable financial assessment processes. I and the public, I think, deserve more specific details.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to correct the member opposite who is trying to quote me from yesterday. If you want to read Hansard, which is what you should do, what I said yesterday was that seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador and persons with disabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador can today continue to access home support services as they do, in the same fashion as they did yesterday, in the same fashion as they will tomorrow.

I indicated yesterday that we are in the process of developing a strategy around long term care and community supports. A piece of that is an evaluation of the financial assessment tool that we currently use. As we do that, as we better understand the current tool, better understand the implications, we will be in a much better position to map out what it should look like on a go forward basis to make sure we appropriately respond to the needs of the seniors and persons with disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Well, Mr. Speaker, what is not in Hansard is what the minister did not say. He did not directly answer my question yesterday, so now I am going to ask it again and see if he will put a yes or a no answer to the question so Hansard will reflect it.

I asked yesterday if people who are in desperate need but who fall short because of the terrible financial assessment tool that we have, that the minister recognizes is a bad tool, who are in desperate situations now and who are waiting for homecare but cannot access it because of the results of this tool, will this government put a contingency fund in place until a new tool is in place that will deal with the needs of these people - yes or no? That was my question yesterday that you never answered, Minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: What I also said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was that our government has invested an additional $30 million over the last four years for home support services in this Province. That is a significant commitment, I say, Mr. Speaker, and it reflects our government's commitment to support those individuals who want to live independently in their own homes as long as possible.

Those individuals living, today, in Newfoundland and Labrador, who want to access home supports, still have access to that pot of money. Close to $100 million this year we will spend on home supports. So, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador still have the ability, working with the regional health authorities, working with social workers, health providers, to ensure that their individual needs are met.

There is an application process currently in place, and I suggest that anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador today who needs home support, or working with their families, that they deal directly with one of the four regional health authorities who would be only too glad to work with them and look at their financial circumstance, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure". (Bill 4)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services". (Bill 5)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Embalmers And Funeral Directors". (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act". (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Registered Nurses". (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to present a petition, and I will read the body of the petition: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled.

WHEREAS there is a shortage of doctors to service the medical needs of people in many areas of this Province; and

WHEREAS this shortage of general practitioners is causing people to have to either go without the services of a doctor or depend on the outpatients and emergency services offered at regional hospitals;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to improve efforts to recruit and retain general practitioners in all areas of the Province so that they would have adequate service.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed during the Throne Speech - and we are looking forward, I guess, to when the Budget comes down - it was noted that there would be some news coming on the retention of doctors and other professional people throughout our Province.

When it comes to, I guess, a lack of doctors, I know all too well what it is like in the Conception Bay North area. Yes, we do have doctors but I can ensure you there is a tremendous shortage. Many of the people there do not have a doctor at all. Many people call, wondering what they can do. They go to the Health Sciences or St. Clare's or Carbonear General, and they don't have a general practitioner where their reports can be sent back. They find themselves in a very strenuous situation from time to time. Other people were fortunate to be able to get in contact with general practitioners here in St. John's. Some of the doctors moved to this area and they took the list of patients with them, Mr. Speaker.

Having a shortage of general practitioners carries other responsibilities with it, because all too often people, even people who have doctors, and others who are trying to get into those clinics, when they call they are unable to come up with the services of a doctor and the message manager cuts in and says: In case of emergency, please go to the Carbonear General.

I guess, regardless of what the situation is, many people take their issues as emergencies, and many people have to go to Carbonear General and there are tremendous lineups. I have had calls over the recent past couple of weeks where people have been there waiting three, four and five hours, got discouraged and left and went back home.

It has nothing to do with the people who work at those facilities, Mr. Speaker. Those people are stressed to the limit. It is just that there are so many people coming there, due to a lack of general practitioners, they find it very difficult.

Like I said, the waiting lists are tremendous so we are calling upon government - and hopefully we will hear something about this in the Budget. It is mentioned in the Throne Speech that over the coming days and weeks we will see some plan that this government has in place for, I guess, not only the retention of the doctors that we have, but a plan in place so that other people will be coming to our Province, or those who are here in other areas.

We only recently heard of a doctor in the Trinity-Bay de Verde area; he is the only doctor on the Trinity North shore now. He was expressing concerns about the backlog of people he has, and he is unable to take any other patients.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will call upon the minister and hopefully over the next couple of weeks we will hear some good news in this area.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to present a petition on behalf of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are taking up the cause against drug and alcohol addictions in our Province. Mr. Speaker, they have identified the need for a long-term drug and alcohol addictions treatment facility in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said yesterday, we have received petitions with thousands of names on them from people throughout the Province, but a lot of people in the capital city region, I must admit.

Mr. Speaker, these are people who are identifying this need because they see the evidence of it in their communities, in their workplaces, in their social networks and, more importantly, in their families.

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to talk a little bit about what the impact of drug and alcohol addiction is on families, how the destructive behaviour of addicts can impact upon the family unit, whether it be the parents, the brothers and sisters, their own children, or whatever the case may be, and the impacts we see and hear about in the news each and every day; because oftentimes when people become addicted to drugs, and especially hard drugs, they have to get their fix and they have to find the financial means to be able to do that. As a result of it, they lend themselves to theft, they lend themselves to break and enter, and they lend themselves to whatever they need to do to be able to supply themselves with the drugs to fix their addictions. That is why we are seeing the increase in crime happening, especially in our capital city.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the impact that then brings upon the family because when you have a loved one who is an addict, oftentimes it attracts other people into the home, other addicts, people who are drug dealers, that are supplying your loved one with the drugs that they require and they make appearances in your house looking for money or looking for that loved one. It is very disruptive to the family unit, disruptive to the point that it causes a great deal of stress and anguish in the homes, a great deal of mental discomfort for parents and it also provides distractions to other children who might be in that home. Oftentimes we find that people who are addicts in a family unit that you will have cases where younger siblings will model after that person and, again, themselves turn to drugs and alcohol as a mechanism.

Mr. Speaker, we see cases and hear about cases in our Province today where parents of children of addicts are under a tremendous amount of stress, stress that has caused them to have a number of effects on their mental health and their physical health. Mr. Speaker, that, in itself, puts a great deal of stress, not only on our prison system for the addicts but on our health care system for those who need to have the treatments and need to be looked after. This kind of disruptive behaviour, as I said, affects the family unit in a number of ways. That is just one of the reasons why I certainly support the people who are coming forward with this petition, and I hope that government members will as well.

MR. SPEAKER: It being 3:00 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, and this being Private Members' Day, I call on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now to bring forward her motion that is to be debated today.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present this motion today for debate in private members and I certainly look forward to hearing the comments of my esteemed colleagues in the House of Assembly as it relates to this particular issue.

This issue comes as no surprise, I am sure, to any of us in this Legislature. It is an issue that has dominated the media for some weeks now. It is an issue, Mr. Speaker, which speaks to the health and safety of many residents in our Province. In fact, residents that are probably most disadvantaged in terms of people who are hospitalized, people who have had to make our long-term care centres their permanent residence at the later stages in their lives. Mr. Speaker, these people need to ensure that their health and safety is being protected.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion that I put forward today into the record for the House of Assembly. It says:

WHEREAS on February 14 government ordered the closure of twenty-two privately run personal care homes in the Province which were non-compliant with a 2003 order, Section 13.1(b) of the Fire Department Act, to install sprinkler systems in their facilities to protect against the threat of fire; and

WHEREAS government stated that the closure of twenty-two privately run personal care homes were made strictly on the basis of health and safety of the residents of those facilities; and

WHEREAS it was recently discovered that several hospitals, long-term care homes and other government run health care facilities in the Province do not have sprinkler systems in compliance with Section 13.1(b) of the Fire Prevention Act; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to protect patients and residents from fire and safety hazards at its own health facilities;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon government to remove the double-standard that exists between fire regulations at privately run personal care homes and government health care institutions recognizing that fire can occur at any facility.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, that is the resolution that we are debating today. That is the resolution that I have put forward to the House of Assembly and put forward simply for one reason, and the reason being that we need to protect the people who are in our long-term care institutions and our health care facilities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, government had absolutely no problem enforcing regulations as it related to private care home operators in the Province. They had no problem walking in and saying: We will close down your facility if you do not meet the fire standards that have been outlined. I do not necessarily have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that once laws and regulations are made in this House of Assembly they are made for a reason and therefore they should be carried out. In fact, I was somewhat dismayed at the fact that the Department of Health allowed these personal care home operators to continue to operate for the past four to five years without even complying with the regulations, and I certainly question the fact that inspectors in the Department of Government Services and Lands who went out and did the inspections on these facilities and in co-operation with the Fire Commission's office, actually approved and licensed these personal care homes every year for the last four years without even making it a condition of their actual licence. In fact, I talked to home-care operators who were inspected and licensed with no conditions attached to it within six months of government invoking closure.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Department of Health did not make this issue a priority for about four years. When they did decide to make it a priority and to go out and wave a big stick and tell these operators that you have a certain number of days - I forget the number of days - to conform with the regulations or we are going to close you down, they did so without giving any consideration to the fact that they, in their own institutions and facilities, were not meeting the regulatory standards as well. So, nothing wrong with having people conform to the laws, they should, but there is always a problem when you set a double standard for yourself, and that is exactly what has happened in this particular case through the Department of Health responsible for those facilities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we discovered that there were a number of facilities that were owned and operated by government that was not conforming to the regulations after a little investigative work. It did not take a lot of effort, to be honest with you. I spent about an hour one morning calling every health care facility between Forteau and Nain to find out that none of them had installed sprinkler systems. I had a couple of discussions with a couple of other people and found out that there was no system at the Paddon home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and a call from a reporter who indicated to me that there was neither one at the western health care centre in Corner Brook. Shortly after that I made a few more calls and started finding out about a whole number of other facilities throughout the Province that had not conformed to the regulations either. So, I say if I could find out all that information in a few phone calls in an hour or so one morning, I would suggest that the department should have been well aware of it long in advance of them waving the big stick to the personal care home operators.

Mr. Speaker, it did not take a lot of research or a lot of complicated effort to discover that there were dozens of facilities owned and operated by the government in this Province that had not installed sprinkler systems that was required as per code and as per the legislation section 13 of the Fire Inspections Act in the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, government certainly has to answer for that, and I think the Premier made it quite clear yesterday in his scrum, and I think it was appropriate that he made it quite clear because his minister certainly had not made it quite clear up to this point and that it was hypocritical of the government to expect private citizens or private care operators to conform to a regulation that government themselves were not about to conform to. He made it quite clear that he thought that was a hypocritical view of government to take and that movements would be made to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect today, in the House of Assembly, that there will be full support for the motion that I have put forward to ensure that the proper sprinkler systems are installed in those facilities in the Province as per the legislation that has been passed in this particular House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there were a number of issues around this particular incident. One of the more recent issues, I guess, had to do with the fact that today I had set up a meeting with the Fire Commissioner's Office. I had set up a meeting with him for 10:30 this morning. I could have done it at 9:30 actually, gave him the option to do it at 9:30 this morning, to just get briefed appropriately on this particular issue in advance of presenting this particular bill in the House of Assembly today. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we do is research. We do a tremendous amount of research. That means going to the very people who deal with these issues in the Province, whether they are a frontline social worker, whether they are the director of a department, whether it is a Minister of the Crown, or whether it happens, in this case, to be the fire commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely shocked this morning when I received a phone call from the fire commissioner himself to tell me that he had been instructed to go out of town today and was not able to make the meeting with me this morning. I suggested that we move the meeting to immediately, which was 9:30 when he had called me, as opposed to 10:30, but he could not meet. When I asked him if this was on the direction of the minister or someone in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I was told that was something he could not comment on. When a government official tells you that they do not want to comment on something like that it means they really do not want to comment because they probably do not want to espouse the actual situation as it is pertained.

The minister says he did not direct the fire commissioner to not meet with us, but he did direct him to go to Whitbourne first thing this morning. I have to say that you had a number of weeks to do the assessment on the facility at Whitbourne in advance of a Cabinet meeting coming up tomorrow and I think it could have been done well in advance. Mr. Speaker, if it was that important, and I do not underestimate the fact that it is important, but I have to say to the minister you have had a number of days, you have had all week to have this work prepared in advance of a Cabinet meeting that is going to happen tomorrow but you chose to give the direction for him to do it this morning as opposed to meeting with the Opposition, and I think that is very unreasonable and unnecessary. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it speaks of a tremendous insecurity of the minister and his department as it relates to this issue. We were not on any kind of a mission to undermine the work of government. We were only asking for a meeting with an official of the government, a person who was paid by the people, to seek out some information for further clarification, and that is what responsible people do in advance of debating any particular issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to find out that the minister had given a directive for the fire commissioner to leave town this morning to prepare a piece of work for Cabinet for tomorrow that should have been done at least a week ago when you look at the urgency of this particular request. This is nothing new -

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

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

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

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making statements over there in terms that I directed the fire commissioner not to speak to her, and I said this morning and in Question Period, I did not. This was documents that had to be done today for me so I could brief Cabinet. Now, that is what was said, that is what I did, that is what happened. On that, Mr. Speaker, he was the only one who could attend today.

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

Are you speaking to the point of order?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly has the right to intervene but he knows as well as I know, from his experience in this House, that there is no point of order there.

Mr. Speaker, he may not have said to the fire commissioner: Do not meet with the Opposition on this issue, but he did say to the fire commissioner, and I know that he was contacted, and I know that he was informed of the meeting that was scheduled with me this morning. I was already aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I know the direction that he gave him today in carrying out the business of the government was not by accident.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out for the record, on March 6, a week ago - on March 6 the minister made a public declaration in this Province regarding the state of the facility at Whitbourne and the fact that this facility was being asked to have the system installed immediately by the Fire Commissioner' Office. That minister has had a week to direct the fire commissioner in obtaining the information and preparing the documents for a Cabinet meeting that happens every Thursday, Mr. Speaker, every Thursday. The minister knew full well, he had ample time to prepare. It is not my fault that he was lax in doing so, but I think it is absolutely no coincidence that the fire commissioner today was given directions by the minister that were contrary to scheduled meetings that he had already set with the Opposition.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, I want to debate the motion that is in front of us today because we were able to obtain information through talking to health care boards, through talking to private care home operators, through information in the media, through dialogue we had heard from the Premier. Mr. Speaker, we know, and we understand this issue fully in the context that there should not be hypocrisy within government when it comes to applying the legislation and the standards that that legislation brings to the public.

Mr. Speaker, in no way, shape or form should private institutions be forced to conform or face a closure when government can nonchalantly deal with these problems as they see fit within their own timetable and within their own scheduling.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that government members should be supporting this motion today. They should be supporting the motion to have the necessary infrastructure installed in hospitals and in long-term care facilities throughout our Province as is required by the fire and safety standards under the Fire Prevention Act. Mr. Speaker, we feel that this should be done in as timely a fashion as possible. We would like to ask the government to outline a schedule for us in which they will conform to the regulations within their public institutions and schedule for us a time frame in which they will do that work and have it completed. I think that would be the appropriate route to take. I am pleased that there is finally one minister over there, that being the first minister, the Premier, who has recognized -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I remind the member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have an opportunity to conclude my remarks at the end of the day.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this motion today. I have been listening to the public commentary by the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite in recent days as they have been using words like hypocritical, how government is using a double standard and suggesting that government has some kind of a hidden agenda here to protect its own interests.

I want to assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that nothing is further from the truth, nothing at all. If you look at this government's record, since we have been in government the last four years we have invested almost $9 million in fire and life safety issues in health services and health facilities in this Province. Seven million dollars of that, or close to $7 million of that, has been on sprinkler systems alone. In fact, this week, as we stand in this House and debate this private member's motion, this week we have two tenders closing for upgrades to fire sprinkler systems in Forteau and in St. Anthony. That is a reflection of our government's commitment. We put our money where our mouth is. We invest the kind of money that is necessary to bring our facilities up to standards, and we will continue to do that.

Now, the other thing that is interesting - I heard the member opposite stand a few moments ago and talk about the great pain she went through - had the phone calls, had to phone people, phone the institutions, and call around the Province - to find out who had sprinklers and who did not.

I say, Mr. Speaker, all she needed to do was go through her filing cabinet, because she sat in government; she sat on this side of the House as part of a government. In fact, at one time she was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Community Services. She sat in a government back prior to 2003 - because the people of the Province need to understand, and I remind the member opposite, that this issue arose long before 2008. The history of this issue started in 2001, and the Leader of the Opposition sat in a government party at that time. In 2001 this issue arose.

In fact, the order that we are talking about – and she refers to the order issued by the fire commissioner in February 2008 - was an order to comply. It was a compliance order. Twenty-two homes were directed to comply with an order that was issued on their watch.

In March 2003, when the member opposite sat in government, her government issued an order to those same personal care homes. All we did, all the fire commissioner did in recent months, was to – Listen, you now need to comply with the order I gave you back in 2003; and, in 2003 it was on their watch.

The fire commissioner, in 2003, issued an order. In 2003 the initial order was issued, but in 2001 there was another initiative involving some eight personal care homes where the members opposite sat in government and directed eight other personal care homes to install sprinkler systems.

So in 2001, and again in 2003, the members opposite, who are the real hypocrites in all of this, those real hypocrites sat in a government in 2001, 2003, and they, in fact, issued orders to personal care homes to install sprinkler systems. They should have known as well. They stand here today, in innocence, and say: We didn't know that no other hospitals and no other homes didn't have sprinkler systems in them.

How irresponsible were they to issue orders in 2001 and 2003 without knowing? When the fire commissioner issued his compliance order in 2003, we had full awareness. We were fully aware of the current status of our other health facilities, so we were not the hypocrites in all of this, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Before we start to debate this issue, I think it is important to put this motion in context. So, let's deal with the tripe that is in here. Let's deal with the garbage that is in this motion. We will look at all of the WHEREASes, and we will acknowledge all of those because they are statements of fact, but when you get to the "BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon Government to remove the double-standard that exists between fire regulations at privately run personal care homes and government health …" facilities, there is no double standard, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I will use the member's own words. She stood in this House a moment ago and she acknowledged the words of the Premier yesterday. She acknowledged my comments in this House yesterday. So, if she wants to acknowledge those comments as being appropriate then I will propose that we move an amendment to the motion.

I will propose, Mr. Speaker, that we take out the BE IT RESOLVED as tabled in the original motion and we will insert, as she just suggested a moment ago, so I am taking her suggestion. Her suggestion was that the Premier's words yesterday were appropriate. If they are appropriate, let's insert them in the motion.

Let me read this, Mr. Speaker. I am proposing that we take out the BE IT RESOLVED as in the initial motion, because it does not reflect the reality; nor does it reflect the suggestion of the mover. So, to comply with what reality is and to comply with the suggestion of the mover, I am proposing that we change that last part to say: BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon government to continue to act upon the recommendations of the Fire Commissioner's Office with respect to fire regulations and the Fire Prevention Act.

I am making that motion, that we amend that. It is seconded by the hon. member, the Government House Leader, and I table it, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration and the consideration of the Table Officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: I notice my friend, the Deputy Opposition House Leader, rose. I would assume he rose to speak in the debate, but my friend, of course, the minister, has time left in his speaking time yet. All he has done for now is to table a proposed amendment and ask the Chair to determine whether or not it is in order. If it is in order, I am sure the minister will have a few words to say about it and then we will get to the time when my hon. friend will legitimately be able to ask for the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will take a short recess while we review the amendment put forward by the Minister of Health and Community Services to determine if that amendment is in order.

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

After conferring with the Clerks of the Table, it is deemed that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I think the motion that is now before the House, or the amendment before the House, fleshes out, I believe, the more accurate reflection of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something I said a moment ago, at the very beginning. The way the motion is worded now clearly reflects our government's commitment to ensuring that our health facilities in this Province are safe. The residents and the families and the patients who are attending those facilities need to understand that as a government we are committed to ensuring that they are safe environments for people to be living in and visiting.

In the last four years we have invested some $9 million in fire and life safety issues in our health facilities. On an annual basis we are spending over $40 million a year in maintenance and repairs, all major fiscal investments in our health facilities to ensure that they are up to current standards and current codes.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this motion, as tabled in the House today, clearly reflects that we will - as I said in the House yesterday, when the fire commissioner does an evaluation, an inspection and a survey in compliance with the established regulations in the Province, and provides a direction to us, we will comply accordingly. I think the motion as we see before us now reflects our commitment.

My comments yesterday, and the Premier's comments yesterday – and they acknowledged the appropriateness of the Premier's comments yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition.

Just one other point, Mr. Speaker, that I think needs to be said. As a government, I made a comment earlier that the orders that were issued to the personal care home owners in the first place date back prior to our Administration. They date back to early 2003, but it was our government, in 2005, when many of these home owners could not, in fact, install those sprinkler systems, it was our government that came to the table in 2005, in that Budget, and allocated $4 million to assist personal care home owners in this Province to install sprinkler systems.

So, the sprinkler systems that have been installed in these personal care homes are a reflection of this government's commitment to assist those home owners to bring their buildings to standard. In fact, our investment has been to 75 per cent of the total cost of installing those sprinklers in those homes.

I say, Mr. Speaker, we have worked diligently with the home owners to ensure that their homes are up to standard. We have made that kind of commitment through our investment and through working with them, and we, ourselves, as a government, are ensuring that we will, through our four health authorities, ensure that the facilities that they operate meet current-day standards and are safe environments to be in.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this motion, and I ask my colleagues to give consideration to the amendments as proposed and support the motion as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand today and support, I guess, the private member's motion that was put forward by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Also, we will be taking into consideration the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that was put forward by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.

I am not going to take too much time, Mr. Speaker; I just have a few comments to make. I know full well, and I think the minister made it very clear, that when this recommendation was put in force was back in 2003. That is a fact, but I also know some of the circumstances that surrounded that, from that time until this present day. I have had a fairly close handle on it because two of the personal care homes, out of the twenty-two that we are referring to, were in the District of Port de Grave. There is another one in the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, just on one side of the street from a district in Port de Grave, and another one in the district of the Member for Harbour Main, in the community of Brigus.

I spoke with the owners of both of those homes. I am not standing here today to say that this shouldn't have been done, and the minister asked them to comply with that order, because we all know the bottom line is the safety of the workers and the residents in any home or any government facility throughout this Province.

Mr. Speaker, those people were placed in a very awkward position, whether rightly or wrongly. One particular home owner in the community of Shearstown – this order came down in 2003 - they purchased that home in 2005. It went through the government systems that a home that did not comply with this regulation that came down in 2003 was given the green light to be sold to another individual. Since that time, that home has been inspected on a yearly basis. As a matter of fact, only in November 2007 that home was inspected and cleared for operation. The home itself – yes, it is true, it is a wooden structure with three exits, ground level, ramps to the doors.

To me, when we talk about a double standard, and I think the Premier probably confirmed it himself yesterday, that may be the fact. What is the difference? When you look at it from one perspective, when you look at possibly Carbonear General, some of the floors, I understand, have sprinkler systems, and others do not. I guess that is where I am coming from with regard to the double standard.

The individual who purchased that home in Shearstown in 2005, she had to get three tenders, three bids, to qualify for the funding, because they just could not afford to do it on their own. All that lady could get was one bid, and she forwarded that to the Department of Health and Community Services in Clarenville and they rejected it. She was told that they would not be eligible for the funding for that very reason. She tried numerous times but could not get a bid.

I know the Minister of Health, when all of this broke about the sprinkler systems, stated very clearly that his concern was for the safety of the individuals, and he would be there to make sure that they had adequate places to go if those homeowners did not comply.

The lady in question received her letter. She was told by the Fire Commissioner's Office that she knew about it in 2003 - but she didn't own the home until 2005. What happened? She received a letter telling her that she had until March 13 to comply with this order.

Here was an individual who tried every which way to see that was done. They were prepared to put the sprinkler system in, but just could not afford it on their own.

When she received the letter at 1:00 p.m., and I just forget the exact date, 2:45 that same afternoon, who walks through the door of her home? A social worker. A social worker came in to the residents in that home, nothing about sprinkler systems, nothing about this may happen after March 13. The social worker walked in and said to them: I need to know your next of kin because we are going to try to find places to place you people.

Can you imagine the eight or ten residents, what they went through at that point in time? Yes, and their relatives wanted the sprinkler systems installed, the homeowner wanted to install them, but here you were with residents who were approached by a social worker who said: I will be returning in two to three days. You let me know where you want to be placed. That should never have happened, Mr. Speaker, because those individuals wanted to stay where they were and here they were being told that I will be back in two to three days. This was in February. Why would the Department of Health or any social worker be given permission to go into a home and upset the lives of those individuals when the government did not know if that homeowner - they had until March 13 to comply.

Mr. Speaker, the same can be said for the other home in Shearstown. Those individuals, they also own the home in Brigus. The lady told me that she had the approval for the funding but just could not get anyone to come in and install it in time. She was waiting for close to a year, she told me. I am only repeating what those individuals referred to. The home that she had in Shearstown, this is the second home. What she told me, anyone can go and see it, the ground is dug up for them to construct a new home. Why would they spend the money to put a sprinkler system in when in April of this year they may have the funding to construct another new home? Mr. Speaker, this is what it comes down to. There is no one on this side against installing the sprinkler systems or forcing people to comply with them. I think all but two of them now have complied to carry out such an order.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, all too often I guess we get carried away in our actions. As the Minister of Health and Community Services stated, this order was implemented in 2003, and surely it should have been done but I think all the circumstances surrounding the issue and why some people did not comply should have been taken into consideration before social workers walked into those homes and said you have to give me a name of a home where you want to stay to within the next few days.

Mr. Speaker, then we heard of the reports that came down recently dealing with other government facilities, about places that did not have the proper access; not all sprinkler systems in place. I know, and everyone knows, that government cannot install sprinkler systems in all units at any given time, but I believe they should have taken into consideration the fact that those privately owned personal care homes should have been treated a little differently, should have checked out what the circumstances were and why some of them had not installed the systems.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that government should adhere to Section 13.1(b) of the Fire Prevention Act and to - I guess as the motion states now, the amendment to the Private Member's Motion, that government would continue to install sprinkler systems, not just the couple that they have done over the last couple of weeks now that the pressure is on.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I support the Private Member's Motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and call upon government to continue to carry out the rules under which they govern, their own rules under the Fire Protection Act, to see that all facilities are safe.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Education about our schools. It is not a political issue. We are just trying to find out if all public buildings, whether they be in education, health or whatever, that they are all meeting the guidelines so that each and every individual in this Province, whether young or old, can be assured that their safety is taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude my comments and say that government would continue to install the sprinkler systems and see whatever other items have to be taken care of so that the people of this Province, and those who use our public buildings, are taken care of in a safe and caring manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite happy to stand and speak to this resolution that is on the floor and I do so because we, in the House of Assembly, do have a responsibility for the perception that the public holds and perception - while we can question this saying, I think perception very often is reality. So what people perceive is what they believe. That is what I mean, what people perceive is what they believe. Therefore, sometimes as public figures and as people who are accountable to the public, we have to take action and we have to do things to help them have a perception that will be as close to reality as possible because sometimes the perception may not be the reality, but if it is what people believe, that is what is in people's minds.

So, we do have that responsibility, and that is why I am glad that this resolution has come to the floor. I do not have a problem with the language double standard because if government were to proceed down a certain lane, it could very well be proven to be double standard. By that I mean if government were to continue to deal with the issue in a way that is not transparent, if they were doing it in a way that was not giving timelines, if they were not willing to say we recognize that such and such a facility needs a sprinkler system and our goal is to have it in place by such a date, if government was not willing to do that, then I think we are operating under a double standard.

My concern, and what I would be saying to government as I stand here today, is that we have the report from the fire commissioner that came out on March 6, and in that report there are details about what is working and what is not working. Even when the fire commissioner report indicates there is no sprinkler system, but that they are comfortable with the fire and life safety program, I would like to point out that I think we have a responsibility to go a step further than what the fire commissioner is saying. We have to show people, and the government has to show people, that they are willing to push as far as they can to assure people they are safe, that we cannot in anyway gamble. So, the ultimate is to have sprinkler systems. I think we would all agree that the ultimate is not to say there are no sprinkler systems and we are satisfied with fire and life safety program, the ultimate goal would be to have sprinkler systems in place and our fire requirements present that as the ultimate goal. We cannot gamble and if we do not take action on the sprinkler systems in a timely fashion, and I do not mean everything happen now this moment in this Budget - there has to be publicly a plan put out that gives priority, that says, this place does not have a sprinkler system and so because of certain conditions this is number one, the next one is number two, here are the dates, this is when it is going to happen. It may take three Budgets to get them all in place, maybe it all can be done in one budget, but people want a plan. People want to know that we are not gambling.

I am urging the government - by voting for this motion, that is what I am doing, urging the government to be accountable to people, to say to them: We want the best possible and we have to recognize that the best possible is sprinkler systems everywhere.

I have read the comments from the Fire Commissioner where the Fire Commissioner talks about the difference between personal care homes and some of the public government facilities, whether they are hospitals or long-term care. The Fire Commission points out that some of the facilities, the personal care homes, are wooden structures. That is true, but they are under very, very strict regulations as well from the Fire Commissioner and they have everything in place to deal with emergencies. They have to or they would not be opened. At the same time, they are much, much smaller than large facilities and also everybody inside of those personal care homes are ambulatory. By the nature of the personal care home they have to be Level 1, Level 11, or Level 111 care; so they are ambulatory. There is nobody who is confined to a bed. They would not be in one of the personal care homes if they were.

When I look at all of these factors, I am not saying that we should not make sure that the personal care homes get the sprinkler systems in, as the government has done. I absolutely support that. But we also have to say it is the best possible practice to have the sprinkler systems and government should be following the best possible practice.

The next report that comes out, like the one that came out from the Fire Commissioner's Office, and that was part of the press release on March 6, the next thing I would like to see, next to the status column, is not just status with regard to what the Fire Commissioner said, but I would like another column with status of government action. When is government going to take the actions, because people need to know that their lives are not being gambled with?

When the personal care homes were notified overnight that they were going to be shut down if sprinkler systems were not put in place, tremendous fear was put into people because they started to wonder, well, are we living in a safe building or not? Families wondered are they living in a safe building and why, all of a sudden, it had to happen overnight. That was one of the things that concerned me most. I do not have a long history, as my colleagues in the Official Opposition have, with regard to running government; I obviously do not. I do not have a history with regard to homes that existed and did not exist. However, one of the questions that came to me, in my current position, was: How come, all of a sudden, after all of these years, now it has to happen immediately? It said to me that there was not enough ongoing consultation with the homes during the process. It is not enough to receive a notice and then maybe six months later or eight months later have somebody call you up.

I think that if government is going to be depending on personal home care - and that is not an odd thing, that happens right across the country, that you have a mix of public and private care going on for people in every province and territory. If government, though, is going to do that then government has to assure a very tight relationship between government and the personal care homes. It is not enough, I don't think, to say that the Fire commissioner is doing his or her job - in this case it is a he - that the Fire Commissioner is doing the job that role requires and we do not have to worry about what is going on. I think the ministry that is responsible for personal care should be in a regular ongoing discussion with them. There should be constant consultation because ultimately whether our seniors are in personal home care or whether the seniors are in government owned and operated long-term care facilities, these people are the responsibility of government. I mean, that is the reality. These citizens are ultimately the responsibility of government. Their care is the responsibility of government.

There has to be a tighter ongoing relationship between the ministry and the privately run personal home care facilities. That is something that I would urge the ministry to make sure happens, if it does not already happen. Just as we are saying that we want the government to continue to comply with its own fire regulations and to continue to act as it should, I think I would like to say to the government that if you do not have an ongoing, solid relationship with the people who run the personal care homes then that should be put in place, a whole process of consultation, so that we never again come to an emergency situation which was sort of presented to us some weeks ago. We cannot have that happen again.

I think in setting priorities we have to look at questions like which facilities are in a more tenuous situation than others, and we do not have a full answer for that yet I do not think. Maybe the ministry has it and it is just not made public. When I look under, for example, the long-term care homes in the report from the Fire Commissioner I see two. I see one in Lewisporte and I see one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I would like to know what the reports are on all of the long-term care homes. Maybe they are fine but they are not reported on in this document. I think that we should have the report on all of them. I would like to ask the government to assure that the Fire Commissioner give out another report that includes all of the long-term care homes. Maybe they are all fine but we do not know that. The public does not know it. That is who we are responsible to, is the public.

My concern then - I know the government is concerned about the safety of the people; I do not doubt that at all. I think that it is important for the public that we are willing here this afternoon as the House of Assembly to vote together to confirm that we all do care about the safety of the people in this Province and to confirm that everything is going to be done to make sure that the best possible standards are put in place. You know the wording that we have, that the government immediately comply with its own fire regulations and installs sprinkler systems, I think is a good way to put it, because, even though the fire commissioner, as I said, has said that in some instances the fire commissioner is not concerned because you have good life-saving systems in place, the ultimate still is to have a sprinkler system. Therefore, I would want to see us vote that the government would commit itself to installing sprinkler systems at the government run health care facilities. Then, my own hope would be that government would put out a public document which will give its plan for how quickly they can do that, what the deadlines are.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to address some comments that were made, that this was not overnight; this was a five-year process. In 2003 the fire commissioner issued the order, and in March 2003 the Liberal government was there.

Mr. Speaker, there is not one personal care home owner who is shocked by what happened, not one. We put a 75-25 cost-sharing ratio to make it happen. Back in 2005 this government said: Look, we understand the dilemma that you are in, and we are going to provide assistance to help make it happen. The ultimate here is to make it safe for the residents of those personal care homes.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about sprinklers, in terms of whether a sprinkler system is in a building or not. The fire commissioner has said, just because there is no sprinkler system in a facility, that does not necessarily mean it is unsafe. There are a lot of other mitigating factors that happen in life safety codes in a building. The sprinkler system is one of them.

Mr. Sprinkler – Mr. Speaker. I am saying sprinkler so often now you could be a sprinkler, whatever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: It is a very serious issue, though, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that, but you can understand how many times I have said the word sprinkler over the last number of days. It is almost being (inaudible). To my hon. the colleague, he will understand that.

The code requirements for different buildings are different. From one building to another they are different. It could be on the structure of it; it could be on whatever is in it or whatever.

The hon. Opposition Leader said she was concerned about the ones on the Coast of Labrador. Now, that was identified by the fire commissioner saying they are community clinics and they did not have to be ‘sprinklered'. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that very seldom – I wouldn't say never, but very seldom – is there anyone spending overnight there. If they are, then they are transported to the hospitals in Goose Bay and one in St. Anthony for services.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say here is this: after doing this, I commissioned the fire commissioner to go out and look at the ten facilities that need to have a sprinkler system in them. Now, that is if they need a sprinkler system in them. He is go and visit each and every one of them, examine them, do a visual inspection of them, monitor them, and report back.

Mr. Speaker, with this, our caution is that if anything is recommended - and that is if, I do not know and I do not presume what the fire commissioner is going to respond back to me, as minister - that will be waiting until he comes back with that report. There is thirty days to do that. If he can do it quicker, which I would rather, the better.

Mr. Speaker, what he is going to do in that site visit: he is doing a site visit, review of the emergency and evacuation procedures, review the staff training that is in those facilities, interview appropriate staff and determine both if fire and life safety practices are in place.

That is what the fire commissioner will do. Now, go back to the fire commissioner. At no time did a red flag go up on any of these facilities to the fire commissioner. If they did, if a red flag did go up, then he would investigate them.

The inspections, Mr. Speaker, are done by the municipal fire departments in the area, and some are done by Government Services. In here, in the Avalon - take the Avalon, for example - the St. John's Regional Fire Department is doing numerous inspections of the facilities here. So, that is their responsibility.

The idea that the fire commissioner is going to go out and inspect every single facility in the Province - that is not what the fire commissioner is all about. What happens is that, if there is a deficiency in the building that is flagged by the fire commissioner, he will then investigate it and do a recommendation on that. That is what happens, Mr. Speaker. That is the way the fire commissioner operates.

Mr. Speaker, again, when I go back to the personal care homes, when that was done back on February 14, I believe was the date, there were twenty-two closure orders. I said in this Chamber yesterday that there were closure orders but we wanted to have the twenty-two comply. We didn't want anything, or any one of them, to close, not one of them.

Mr. Speaker, two closed on their own terms. One because they basically, from what I can understand, just wanted to get out of the business, and the other one didn't have anyone in that facility at the time the issue order was executed.

Mr. Speaker, if you take those two out of the equation, what happened since February 14: we have the twenty remaining, and twenty have complied with that order. I think that speaks volumes both of the initiative that this government has taken on supporting the personal care homes and also the initiative taken by the personal care home owners themselves, and I want to thank them for doing that, for complying.

Now, the possible number of residents who could have been displaced is very minimal, of the numbers that could have been. Right now, I believe, there are four, and they come from the Holyrood Woodford facility - I think it is the Woodford facility, four - and there is plenty of room in personal care homes around CBS, so they will not have to move very far.

Mr. Speaker, again, there were no red flags. There were no immediate concerns, by anyone, given to the fire commissioner on any of these facilities. If anyone did, or had intention to do, then it would have been acted upon. Mr. Speaker, the appropriate action would have been taken.

To say that the buildings are unsafe is not right. To say that we are concerned about it is certainly right. We are concerned about it and we are taking appropriate action. This government has committed to the safety of every resident in any facility within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, we have put our money where our mouth is, in terms of doing that. We have put in a significant amount of money, as the Minister of Health and Community Services has articulated time and time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, I will close now. I await the report or the briefing that I will get from the fire commissioner. It is thirty days to do it. If he does it in less, than I will get the briefing a lot earlier. I hope it is a lot less, depending on the demand on the time that he has to do it, but it is explicit orders, it has to be completed within thirty days.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair speaks now she will close the debate.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs have so much to say on this issue today because it was only a few days ago when he talked to CBC in a news interview that he was not aware of the issue until CBC had contacted him with information with regard to the health facilities. At least I can say that he is up to speed on this issue enough that he can contribute to the debate because he did not know anything about the infrastructure in the health facilities until the media had called him. So, we are making tremendous progress.

Let me just say a couple of things. When the Minister of Health was speaking with regard to this motion he made reference to when the legislation was enacted in the House in 2003. Mr. Speaker, that legislation was enacted at that time for a very important reason and that was because it was recognized by the Fire Commissioner's Office at that time that there needed to be more fire safety precautions taken in these facilities where people were residing for longer periods of time and certainly needed to ensure the safety of these individuals.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, that was the reason the laws were passed. I supported those regulations in 2003 and I support those regulations today, I say to the minister, and was proud to support them because it was lifesaving measures that were being looked at. Some of his own colleagues were not as keen to support the legislation back then, like the Minister of Business, the Member for Terra Nova who claimed that it was the solution for bankruptcy of personal care home operators in this Province and who felt they should not have to conform to the regulations. He took tremendous opposition to it as a personal care home operator in this Province and ran to the media with the story saying: I will not conform. But, Mr. Speaker, times have certainly changed.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would understand that the minister, too, realizes the importance of this bill and the importance of supporting this bill and I am sure that he did conform to the regulations, without any doubt. So, Mr. Speaker, things do certainly change.

Mr. Speaker, we introduced this Private Member's Motion today and we did so because we felt that it was necessary for government to honour the legislation that has been passed in this House in meeting the requirements for its own institutional facilities. There were a number of those that were identified. In fact, twenty-two throughout the Province; some of which we understand there is some work being done on but others, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no action taken on to date.

Mr. Speaker, one of the facilities that the Fire Commissioner's Office has said that they will be prepared to exempt from the sprinkler system is Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook. Now, under the legislation I realize, because the legislation does say that he or she may order the owner or the occupant to comply with the laws. So, it does say they have the option. What I do not understand is why the same criteria was not applied to personal care home operators? They were not assessed based on the fact as to whether they had proper safety precautions already in place and exempted, but government owned facilities are being assessed on that basis and some are being exempted. So, you talk about why we insinuate there is a double standard. There are many incidents of double standards. I am sure that all of these personal care homes as well had panic hardware and fire escape plans and fire alarm drills and all the rest of it, but still, was that adequate? It was not adequate. So, I would have to question why certain facilities are being exempt, and those facilities are ones that are owned and operated by the government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when I closed debate earlier, that at least the first minister in the government, being the Premier, recognized the hypocrisy that was existing in the double standard that was applying to public facilities and private facilities. At least, Mr. Speaker, he had the ability and the gumption to come out and own up to it and admit it when two of his own ministers kept flip flopping and dancing around it. So, at least we have seen some incidents where someone over there has confessed that yes, there is some hypocrisy here, and yes, there is a double standard, and yes, we will move to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs states that the clinics on the Coast of Labrador do not fall under this particular legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge that because, let me put it to you this way, yes, there are a number of those coastal clinics that have very small numbers of people that reside in them overnight, and I will be the first to confess that. In fact, there are a number of these clinics that the only time they have overnight stays is in cases where they are being medevaced to a larger hospital, either in St. Anthony or Goose Bay, and they cannot be medevaced by air at that particular time, then oftentimes they are hospitalized, but there are other facilities in the same region that have longer term stay. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will know this because she lives in Northern Labrador. She will know that the hospital in Hopedale and the hospital in Nain, in particular, are being used by patients who are hospitalized at various times throughout the year and for various extended periods at a time.

Mr. Speaker, in my own district in Forteau, at the health centre patients are being hospitalized on a regular basis. So, Minister, while there might be some of these clinics that could potentially be perceived as having a very low number of people staying overnight, there are others that have larger numbers for longer periods of time. I would ask that he certainly look into that and see what those number of occupancy nights are before people are being medevaced to larger facilities to be treated.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I wanted to indicate, and this is a very important point as well, when the legislation for the installation of sprinkler systems was introduced in the Province in 2003, it was the fire commissioner being the lead fire person for the Province who took the lead on that legislation. He was the one who went out and introduced the legislation and the law, informed people who were affected and helped them conform to it. It was also the fire commissioner in 2005, operating under the mandate of the government opposite, that went out and issued an ultimatum to all the personal care homes and said: You have to conform to the regulation. This was in 2005, and at that time - I am not sure of the numbers right now, but at that time there were still a number of facilities that had not conformed to the regulations. So, obviously, he went out and told them that he expected them to conform or other action would be taken. Well, it took two years for government to move, or almost three, before any other action was taken. When that action was taken, it was taken in the context of saying you either meet the regulations within this period of time or we will close down your facility.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, some personal care home operators, within thirty minutes of being informed that their facility could close, the Minister of Health had social workers in there meeting with elderly people telling them you are going to have to move out. Some of them were going around thinking they had not paid their rent for that month and they would have to leave the facility. That was the traumatizing experience that was caused for these residents simply because government had bungled the way that they were handling this particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to my point that the fire commissioner was the lead person on this for the Province when the legislation was enacted in 2003, when it was re-enforced in 2005 and again in 2008, today we learn from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, outside of the House in a media scrum, that the fire commissioner will no longer be the lead speaker on issues related to fire safety in this Province; that he, as the minister, is now going to take over that portfolio. He will answer all of the questions, the technical briefings and all the rest of it, and the fire commissioner will no longer have those responsibilities.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I just hope that he is more briefed on it than he was the hospital reports that laid in the department for three years; because, if he isn't, we won't get much of a technical briefing.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important point, because when governments hire and appoint people to the office of public service they do so having to entrust in them a certain degree of confidence to do the jobs that they do. The fire commissioner is one of those positions, Mr. Speaker, and I am absolutely disgusted today to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs say that he will strip the fire commissioner of all ability to discuss and promote, in this Province, with the media, in any way, shape or form, issues related to public safety and fire safety of individuals and of our facilities. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement for any minister to make, especially one in a government that claims to be open and accountable.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was absolutely unnecessary to make those kinds of statements. I was appalled by it, and I was even more appalled this morning when I got a call from the fire commissioner cancelling a meeting with me because the Minister of Municipal Affairs had directed him to go to Whitbourne to do some paperwork that should have been done in the last six days, Mr. Speaker, in preparation for Cabinet, but he was only instructed to go and do that paperwork this morning.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I believe wholeheartedly, that instruction was given only because he had scheduled a meeting with the Opposition caucus to discuss the issues of fire safety in this Province and the minister was not prepared to let him have that leniency to do his job. Mr. Speaker, I strongly feel that way.

I will tell you what was even more appalling, and actually a little bit laughable. The Minister of Municipal Affairs suggested to the fire commissioner that he should meet with the Leader of the Opposition on Friday.

Well, let me tell you what is happening on Friday, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, I will be in my district attending the Combined Councils of Labrador meeting, and I will be travelling there on a chartered aircraft with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how convenient of the minister to ask the fire commissioner to come and meet with me on Friday, when he knew full well that myself, the Leader of the NDP, the Government House Leader, a number of other ministers here in the Cabinet, have already committed and will be travelling together to Port Hope Simpson to meet with the Combined Councils of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, that was uncalled for. That was as low as you could probably go. He could have at least said to him to meet with me tomorrow afternoon, or to meet with me on Monday - at least he would know that I was available - but he said no, tell her you will meet with her on Friday, the very day that I will be his seatmate on a chartered aircraft going to Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of respect that you get from the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Actually, do you know something, Mr. Speaker? In all the years I have been in this House of Assembly, I really never experienced that kind of a problem with any of the other ministers, I have to say. I have yet to find out, I guess, if there is more to come.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Well, he was on the same e-mail list that I was on, when I got the list of names of who was travelling. It was Minister Dunderdale, Minister Hedderson, Minister Pottle, Minister O'Brien, and Minister Rideout. I was copied on the same e-mail that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was copied on, which told me exactly, I say to Minister Dunderdale, who was going to be on the plane.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I think that if he wanted to offer up a meeting between the fire commissioner and the Leader of the Opposition, he could have done so at a time when he knew that I was going to be available.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he needs to read his briefings a little bit more carefully, if he happened to miss that piece of information.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in concluding my comments today, I want to say that I think this motion is not being put forward on any other basis, other than the fact that we feel that government should conform to safety regulations that are being implemented in the Province, the same way they expect personal care home operators to conform to those regulations; and, Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. members in the House will stand today and support this motion.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will read the amendment.

The amendment reads: BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly calls upon Government to continue to act upon the recommendation of the Fire Commissioner's Office with respect to fire regulations and the Fire Prevention Act.

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the motion, as amended, carry?

All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The amended motion is carried.

On motion, amended motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Today being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, Thursday.

This House is now adjourned.