The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the House welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the hon. the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre Dame, the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port, and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to J.M. Olds Collegiate of Twillingate, for their recent success in both the fields of education and athletics.

Over the last few years, J.M. Olds Collegiate has been recognized by the Atlantic Institute for Market Research as a school that has demonstrated continuous progress. The AIMS report gives a comprehensive look at an accumulation of many aspects of school life from academic success, attendance, and student preparedness for post-secondary preparation. Given this defined criteria, J.M. Olds was rated the top school in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2004. To be rated as the top in the Province is indeed a great accomplishment for the students, staff and parents.

Mr. Speaker, these accomplishments do not end there. J.M. Olds Collegiate has also continued to experience tremendous success in athletic competitions. The J.M. Olds Tigers recently claimed provincial titles in basketball and ball hockey. The female basketball team won the provincial West Under 17 championship and the boys claimed their first high school provincial title for the sport of ball hockey. Since the start of the school year, J.M. Olds has won five provincial titles.

The coaches and parents have been dedicated to the young athletes of J.M. Olds Collegiate and with the support of school administration, J.M. Olds has made its mark on the provincial school sports scene.

Mr. Speaker, J.M. Olds is also establishing itself as a school of music. Thanks to a new music program introduced in 2007, many students participate in the music curriculum and after school programs. Recently, some twenty-eight students and their teachers attended School Stock, a day of music celebration held each year in Buchans.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to ask my colleagues in this House to congratulate the students, staff and administration of J.M. Olds Collegiate on their continued success and their efforts to ensure a quality education and a quality school life for students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate organizers, participants and winners from the Northern Heritage fair that recently took place at Mountain Field Academy in Forteau.

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, young people from Grades 4-9 gathered at Mountain Field Academy to display their heritage projects. There were fifty-four projects from twelve schools representing the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador.

Many aspects of our heritage were showcased with imagination and creative displays featuring topics such as traditional music, Sir Wilfred Grenfell, and the expeditions of Bob Bartlett.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Brady Belben, a Grade 6 student from St. Paul's Elementary who won best overall display, entitled: The Great Discovery of Voisey's Bay. He also won the Imperial Oil Foundation Award and first place in the Grades 6-7 category. He will now go on to represent this region at the national fair being held in Ottawa in July.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing the contributions our young people make in keeping our heritage alive and congratulate everyone involved in pulling together a successful event.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for fourteen years the Stephenville High School Band has participated in the Atlantic Band Festival in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Junior high and high school students from across Canada compete in this festival.

Over the years, Stephenville High has excelled and this year was no exception. This year, in fact April 30-May 2, the concert band received silver at the advanced senior high school level. The jazz ensemble received gold at the highest level for high school and the Grade 9 band received gold for the very good junior high school/beginner senior school level.

The students of the Stephenville High School band have earned a reputation of respect with the Atlantic Band Festival staff, not only for the high quality of their band performances but also for how well they represent their school and Province. They are known for being very polite and well behaved.

I also want to acknowledge Mr. Howard Larade, Stephenville High School's music teacher. His dedication to the music program and to his students is exceptional. He is a rare find and the students of Stephenville High School are indeed very fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House to join me in applauding Mr. Larade and the Stephenville High School band students for another successful year at the Atlantic Band Festival. We wish them many more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate and recognize the First Mount Pearl Women's Institute on celebrating their fortieth anniversary on May 12 of this year.

This group's origins can be traced back as far as 1929 when a tidal wave hit the South Coast of the Island portion of Newfoundland and Labrador. Lives were lost, as were homes and household items. When the news reached St. John's, Lady Anderson, wife of the Governor at that time, organized a service league to help victims of that disaster. Jubilee Guilds were later formed with the purpose of improving the quality of life in rural areas through education, crafts and service. The name of this league was changed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes in 1968.

As members of the National Federated Women's Institutes of Canada and the International Associated Country Women of the World, the First Mount Pearl Women's Institute is part of a membership totalling 8 million worldwide. The Mount Pearl branch has produced three provincial presidents, one national president, and the current world area president for Canada is Margaret Yetman, also from the Mount Pearl branch.

A significant part of Mount Pearl since 1969, and this year celebrating their fortieth anniversary, it is only fitting that the First Mount Pearl Women's Institute be recognized for the work it does at the community level. This group can be found helping with the Frosty Festival, being involved with the Seniors' Independent Living events, assisting with Library Board Functions, and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the First Mount Pearl Women's Institute on this significant achievement of celebrating its fortieth anniversary. I truly hope that they will continue their good work in and around Mount Pearl.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, information and communication technologies are an important aspect of teaching and learning in today's classroom. Technology improves the students' overall school experience. Given the rural nature of Newfoundland and Labrador, our Province has been a leader in the use of technology and distance learning, particularly at the post-secondary level. That reputation continues to grow. I am pleased to inform this hon. House that, once again, Memorial University's Distance Education and Learning Technology, known as DELT, has won a national award.

For the second year in a row, DELT has been recognized by the Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. At an event in Ottawa last night, members of DELT's Second Life Team, comprised of Marlene Brooks, Catherine Wicks, Jamie Chang and Donna Downey, together with Dr. David Murrin, were presented with an Award of Excellence and Innovation in Use of Technology for Learning and Teaching.

Second life, Mr. Speaker, is a 3D virtual technology that can be used to create new and innovative teaching and learning environments. The Award of Excellence recognizes how well the Second Life team integrated the 3D technology into a typical engineering course, helping engineering students build a successful, working, virtual shipyard. The students became the designers and the engineers, and their level of involvement enhanced their overall performance in the course.

Mr. Speaker, our government is a strong supporter of technology in the classroom, recognizing how well it can supplement teaching and learning. At the K-12 level, for example, we recently allocated $2.2 million for computer replacements, and $1.5 million over a three-year period for a technology integration plan. At Memorial, $1.5 million has been allocated to increase the number of courses available through distance education. In addition, government has supported the implementation of a common cutting-edge technology for distance learning in the K-12 system, Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic.

Memorial University's DELT is constantly working to keep the university and the Province on the leading edge of new technologies, Mr. Speaker. I ask the hon. House and the members here to join me in offering congratulations to all those involved in this latest endeavour.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and to say that we, too, want to congratulate Memorial University's Distance Education and Learning Technology on this national award, and in particular to congratulate the four individuals that the minister has named, and the individual, Dr. Murrin, who was with them when they received this Award of Excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the minister announced some funding that is going into our schools. It was only yesterday that I commented on that. All funding that goes into any of the schools to help our students, I can assure you, is a blessing to each and every one of them.

With regard to the replacement of computers, we know that is wonderful, the money that is going in there, but I would suggest that we also have to look at, and I ask government to consider, purchasing additional computers to go in some of the schools. I know some of them do not have the amounts that they would need to do this properly.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, he mentioned the $1.5 million over a three-year period for a technology integration plan. I was just wondering, probably this is a part of the government's fibre optic plan that we heard about over the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, not taking away from the minister's statement, I just want to say that we in the Official Opposition want to congratulate Memorial University as they continue to win awards at the national and international level and to wish each and every one of them every success.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and join with the minister and with the Official Opposition in congratulating the Second Life team. Once again, students from Memorial continue to show the excellence of the educational system that we have in our post-secondary university.

I am pleased that we have a Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation and that we are able to move ahead, not just here in our Province but to be leaders on the level of our country. We know that distance learning is successful but we also know that it has limitations. I remember maybe this time last year asking the minister if government had done a survey with participating students, especially in our elementary and high school system, to get an idea of how well students fare in distance learning in comparison to students who are in classrooms with live teachers, for the subjects that are covered, and are some subjects covered better by distance learning than other subjects? I would be really interested in that kind of a study being done. I say this to the new Minister of Education, and hope that he would look into this.

One thing is certain, though, that if our elementary and high schools are to keep up with the technology that we do have at the university we do need to have all of our schools connected into high-speed Internet. While I understand most schools around are connected into the Internet, we do not have all high-speed yet, so the new technology that we require needs to be rushed in order for all students to benefit.

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, we have reached a significant milestone with our new telephone service for motor registration. Since July we have had over 100,000 phone calls for motor registration services. Specifically, we received the 100,000 call on April 28.

The teleservice has been a huge success story for my department and for the government overall. The overwhelming feedback from our customers is that this has made a significant improvement to customer service.

Mr. Speaker, the concept behind the teleservice is simple: it brings customer service back to basics by providing a real person on the other end of the phone to answer questions and to direct inquiries.

On average, we receive between 600 and 650 calls a day and provide service in an average time of two minutes per caller – all this with only four to five agents. In April, we broke a record of the most telephone calls received in one day at 859 calls.

Mr. Speaker, the teleservice agents have been able to answer almost 70 per cent of customer service questions without having to transfer the call to a specific program area or a regional office. This is significant, as it provides quicker, more efficient service for our customers and allows our other frontline service staff to concentrate on the clients they have in front of them. There are some areas where calls must be transferred, such as to the medical section at headquarters, because these calls generally require more detailed service or access to private files.

On average, the motor registration division processes nearly 1.5 million transactions a year, including serving approximately 300,000 customers directly over the counter at offices throughout the Province. A number of people will call first before coming to one of our offices. So the teleservice is of great benefit in determining how we can provide the right service to best meet their needs.

I have given out the number before but, again, the toll-free number for our citizens is: 1-877-636-6867.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would also encourage our customers to have their driver's licence number and/or their licence plate number at hand as this will assist in having a teleservice agent being able to address their needs more quickly.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I think I have given a statement of this sort before in regards to this service and certainly, I will continue to give these kinds of statements in regards to the service that this government is providing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I also want to point out the absolute professional service that our public servants are giving to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advanced copy, and he did not have to apologize on the end of his statement because I was not even going to bring it up about how he made this one before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note.

As the minister stated, we have come a long ways in this Province, there is no doubt about it. I can remember back a few years ago when we would be lined out around this building, two and three lines, trying to get in and register. Here we now have a telephone system. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, this system does work. I can tell the minister that. I do mine online now without calling and even speaking to anyone.

One thing I will say, Mr. Speaker, I wish other departments would get their telephone systems in line with this one. I can see the minister over there nodding now, and I know they are doing that. When it comes to HRLE, the people in this Province have a terrible time getting through, and not even getting to speak to anyone because they are on the line for thirty or forty minutes and then they are told to call back again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, this is a good statement. It is the way we have to go. We have the technology and it is good to see a service working where the people can speak to someone on the end of the line rather than a message manager.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. He repeated his statement from a year ago, and I am going to repeat what I said a year ago as well. We have all noted that.

I am delighted with how well things are going in your department, minister. I said last year and I say it again, I wish that you would train some of the workers in the other departments, because seriously, the wait time for HRLE – we are still getting phone calls in our office – is still at least an hour, people on the phone. This week, of course, we have been getting calls about the new camping reservation line and people complaining that they have been on hours waiting to make a reservation. So, I think that the Government Services Department needs to do training with all the other departments who are using phone lines.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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, earlier in the session the Minister of Finance stated that government was concerned about the nursing shortage and the ability to recruit nurses and the ability to retain nurses in the Province, and that was why they went outside of the monetary template that had been in place. This morning, the Premier stated that if nurses are legislated back to work they will lose any additional monetary offers that were put on the table to address recruitment and retention, and instead get the same template as everyone else.

I ask the Premier, today: Why are you threatening to remove these monetary benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the last week over 300 people have lost their jobs in Mount Pearl – is that correct? A call centre is going to be closed. In the last three or four months 700, 800 people have lost their jobs in Central Newfoundland and Labrador. People have been laid off in Labrador West, Wabush and Lab City. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country have lost their jobs, auto workers and others, and we offered the nurses in the Province a raise of 31 per cent. A significant raise. What do we get for that?

Last night, any of us who happened to watch the news would have seen the president of the nurses' union make a statement that basically said that her action was going to place significant pressure on the health care system. Even more than a regular strike. Then with a smirk on her face, she stood up and she said: I can't wait to see how they are going to handle it.

So that is the gratitude and that is the thanks that this government gets for trying to be generous to nurses, to try and resolve their problems, to try and deal with their issues. That is all I did this morning, was told them that basically, if she wants to go to court, which is what she set out to do right from that, then here is what we are going to do if she goes that route.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, because it seems it is attitude on both sides that is standing in the way of getting a resolution on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, if government is truly concerned about recruitment and retention of nurses –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - which they have indicated many times, then monetary benefits would remain a part of any future settlement that is negotiated or legislated.

I ask the Premier, today: Is this tactic, is this threatening move towards nurses only to punish them and to try and force them back into the hospitals in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, some seventeen months ago we started to negotiate with nurses because we felt it was important. We felt their issues were important and we wanted to deal with them. It became very obvious to us after a period of time that there was an agenda in place here. It was a national agenda, and the national union in conjunction with the president of the nurses' union here wanted to go to court. It was all about getting a matter before the courts so that they could test whether binding arbitration was enforceable or not.

That has been the plan. That has gone on for seventeen months. Every time we stepped up, every time we asked to negotiate, they had another reason. They did some work-to-rule, they talked about not defrosting refrigerators, they went through it all. So we then stepped up and we put a very, very good offer on the table. Now we find that, despite all that, it is a cake and eat it too situation. We want to cherry-pick this; we want to take what you have here; we also are objecting to this. So as a result, we want to go to court. She does want to go to court.

All I was saying this morning is that if she does want to go to court, and she will get her wish at the end of the day, then if she goes to court and at the end of the matter the court orders an arbitration, well, then the arbitrator will deal with it. But, our primary concern here is patient safety and patient health. If she says that she is going to jeopardize and place greater pressure on a health care system that the Opposition are already saying is in some difficulty and it is under great pressure, then we are telling her what the consequences of her actions will be. Because if we have no other choice and we have to legislate them back, well that is in the interests of patients' safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But, there is only one party in this Province who can stop the nurses from going to court and that is the government. Mr. Speaker, that is the government.

Right now Omnifacts Research is indicating that 86 per cent of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador support this government going to binding arbitration on these two issues. So Premier, nurses do not have to get their wish to have their day in court. You can stop that today by going to binding arbitration, settling these two issues and keeping the hospital rooms in this Province open. Are you prepared to do it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I see it, in this matter we have two primary responsibilities. The main responsibility is the health, the welfare and the safety of the patients in this Province, the people of this Province, with respect to their health care system. That is our primary duty. The secondary responsibility, we also have responsibility for the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador and we cannot allow groups in this Province to hold us to ransom, to try and blackmail us, to try and extort funds from us on the basis of they are going to basically jeopardize the health care system.

If that was the rationale, if nurses came in and asked for 100 per cent wage increases, then based on your thinking and your logical reasoning, according to yourself, then we should give it to them; because we should not allow the health care system to be in jeopardy and we could end the strike.

What we have said to the nurses here is, if you go this course, and if patient safety and health is in jeopardy, we would have no other alternative than to legislate back. That is not what we want to do. When we legislate back then they will go to court, which is what they want to do, and by 2013, after they go through that court process, then they will get a decision and it would go to binding arbitration. I will be here in this office then, and I will write the cheque out humbly and willingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that the two issues that are outstanding are not monetary issues. They have no implications on the budget of the government, so there is no reason to have legislated nurses, there is no reason to have court action, there is a way to resolve this and it is through independent arbitration.

I ask the Premier: Why are you prepared to sacrifice the long-term stability of our health care system by withdrawing the very monetary package today that would have given long-term stability to the nursing profession in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this government has no intention on trying to jeopardize the health care system in this Province. The leader of the nurses' union last night said that it was her goal, it was her action - it was her course of action - that she was going to put added pressure on the health care system which we all know is under some stress. That is her goal and she laughs about it. It is a game to Ms Forward, and we are not into playing games here. We are not playing games with the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When it comes to these other issues, these are big issues. They are issues that were acceptable to over 30,000 other public employees in the Province and they should be acceptable to the nurses. From our perspective, we have put a package before them. It was a very, very good package. It was a very generous package, and it was intended to address the recruitment and retention issues that they brought forward before us.

If, in fact, we legislate back there will be no steps for first-year nurses, there will no steps for mature nurses, there will be no shift differential increases, there will be no standby increases, and there will be no educational leave increases. We will offer nurses exactly what we offered the other 30,000 public employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In making that offer, the Premier also knows that we will not be fixing any of the problems that we have existing in the nursing profession in the Province today. The only reason they went outside of the template that they had with other unions was recognition of the problems that are there.

Mr. Speaker, nurses have already given their seven-day notice. If they want to launch a full-scale picket line strike in the Province, do they have to give a further seven days notice in order to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, they are on strike. They have indicated that they are prepared to go on strike. They have called it a strike, so there is no doubt in our mind that it is a strike. Whether they have to give another notice, that is a legal matter and their counsel can advise them on that. It would be my understanding that they would have to give a second notice, but they can take legal advice on that.

What the government will do is, we will honour their wishes with respect to the fact that if they want to go out and they want to have an overtime strike then we will deal with the overtime strike as it goes on. As that gets more and more advanced and that places pressure on the system, then because it is a strike we can and we will invoke the essential services contract and then we will move into an essential services situation. That will go on for a period of time until there is a point where we feel that patients are in some jeopardy, or their safety and health is being jeopardized, and at that point we will have no other alternative, as a government, than to legislate the nurses back to work, and that is exactly what we will do. That is not a threat; that is a guarantee.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government has known for quite some time the story of a little boy named Lucas, from Grand Falls-Windsor, who has health issues, some of which the family indicates were caused by Eastern Health's negligence. Lucas is currently in need of consistent occupational and physiotherapy services which his parents have been fighting for, for some time. He has missed over fifty hours of physiotherapy due to cancellations from the providers, and there are continuing problems with inconsistency.

I ask the minister today: Why are the rehabilitative services in the Central Region not providing for the services that children like Lucas require?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House many times in the past, it is impossible for me to speak to the individual circumstance of individual patients without breaching some confidence, but I can tell the members of the House, and the member opposite, that in Central Newfoundland there are two streams of programming, really. Central Health itself has a stream of programs and they provide rehabilitation services to the people who live in that part of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition to that, as part of a provincial program offered by the Janeway, there is a specialized team of people, with physios and OTs involved, providing some specialized intervention for children with very specific and complex needs in their rehabilitation program.

That is the program area that there have been some challenges with staffing in the last little while because of some resignations and maternity leave. I understand that there has been a discussion between Central Health and the Janeway with respect to the kind of continuity that can be provided to services for the individual that the member opposite is questioning, and I am hoping that can be resolved in the very near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, Lucas also has a serious heart condition and he is scheduled to undergo his third life-saving heart surgery in just nine short weeks. His cardiologist says that he needs intensive full-time therapy to get him on his feet before this surgery, and the life planner that was hired by Eastern Health has recommended that an advance of funds be issued to support the intensive physiotherapy that he needs.

I ask the minister today: Is the health care system in this Province going to respond to the needs of this child based on the recommendations of these authorities within our medical field?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the individual in question, and other residents of the Province, can take full advantage of the programs and service that we offer with respect to clinical services but also with respect to programs through our department or through HRLE that may be available to provide financial assistance to individuals as they need to access medical services. That service will be available to this individual that you are raising the question around today, together with other people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the past ten months these physio and occupational therapy services have not been available in the Grand Falls-Windsor area, and this family has required them.

I ask the minister: Is there a process in place in this Province where families like this, who are being referred by specialists in the field, is there a program whereby they can access that service at some other location and have the financial costs incurred by government or some other authority?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I have said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, there are two programs: one that is administered by the Department of Health and Community Services through the Medical Assistance Transportation Program. There are also programs through the Department of HRLE to assist individuals who are experiencing some significant financial challenges as they access health services, and those programs will be available to the family in question here as well.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This family has been dealing with medical issues around their child for a number of years. They have actually written the minister, they have written other members of government with regard to this issue, and they have simply caused themselves tremendous financial hardship in trying to seek medical services for their child in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister: Is it possible that you could consider some kind of a relief for this family so that at least they can relocate temporarily and access the services they need for their child in the next few months, so that this child can get the surgery that they so desperately require?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I feel somewhat awkward on the floor of the House of Assembly and in a very public way, discussing the circumstance of any individual family in Newfoundland and Labrador, or the patients who receive health services, but I can - and I want to assure members of the House and the members of the public that there are programs, as I have said a moment ago, through our Department of Health and Community Services, together with HRL&E, and I encourage this family and others who need financial support, need some assistance in accessing health services, through one of our four regional health authorities or through one of the offices of the Department of HRL&E, to make the necessary contact and provide the necessary information so that the individuals involved can assess their circumstance and offer the kinds of services that we have available.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I questioned the Minister of Justice relating to house arrest as a sentencing option. We understand that house arrest and the bracelet program are monitored by probation officers. I further understand that we have, according to the Department of Justice, statistics this year, thirty-two probation officers in the Province, one of whom covers off the Central region.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm that that one probation officer, who is responsible for the Central region, has more than 120 cases on his workload, which is two to three times higher than the acceptable caseload?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have about thirty-five correctional officers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition to that, there is the assistant probation officer program, in which individuals in various communities are contracted to assist our probation officers in providing probation services. I understand, at the present time, there are six to eight of those individuals. I understand that the caseload for these thirty-five probation officers is in the range of 1,800-2,000.

As for the particular probation officer in the Central region, I am not aware of that situation but I will be happy to look into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We understand that in the past several years there have been numerous representations made to the Department of Justice to have the number of probation officers increased, but this request has been denied.

I ask the minister: With the obvious shortage that exists to monitor such programs as house arrest, why is your department refusing to fund those positions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour and the privilege to serve this Province as Minister of Justice for three years, and recently another six months. I cannot recall, quite frankly, of all the requests for the need for new resources within government, within the Department of Justice, when we spend another $20 million in justice this year, of the priorities, I cannot recall a request from probation.

One of the things I did do today, we had a discussion. I spoke to some of my officials. My officials indicated to me that we are satisfied that the conditional sentences are being well supervised, but we will do a check. Our officials will take a review to see if additional resources are needed, and if they are, then that will go forward as part of the Budget process in the normal manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government prides itself on having made improvements in the justice system. We acknowledge as well the money has been put into the justice system in the past number of years by this government, particularly when it comes to police officers, for example, and the number of RNC officers that we have. However, on the backend, which involves the monitoring of convicted criminals, the resources, I would suggest, are far from acceptable.

Minister, we have had, in recent incidents in this Province, where people have actually died as a result of individuals who have not been properly monitored while they are on house arrest.

I ask you again, minister: Are you prepared to address the situation immediately?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this yesterday in Question Period. I have taken a look at what he said and I do not agree with the premise of his question. He talked about individuals convicted or facing judicial charges and he referred to a particular case which, it would be inappropriate for me as Attorney General to discuss that particular case, and I would suggest the hon. member may wish to check his facts in this particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, we found when we took office in 2003 the Department of Justice has, as they put it, many challenges. We have dealt with police. We have put additional officers, not only in police but also into Crown Attorneys. We have put major investments into legal aid. We are now putting $6 million this year into corrections.

Mr. Speaker, the budget has been increased - since 2003 the budget for Justice has increased by over $140 million. I take my responsibilities very carefully, very seriously, and I will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I guess from the ministerial statement now the pendulum is going to swing from one end to the other.

On April 29, the Department of Environment and Conservation issued a news release stating that the launch of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Parks Camp Site Reservation System would be delayed in certain parts due to technical difficulties. Our office received several calls from citizens who discovered that a number of sites had been booked on reservation sites in La Manche Park before the scheduled opening.

I ask the minister: Why were some citizens able to jump the gun on the reservation dates and why is your department honouring these reservations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation that the member speaks about and I will certainly check into it.

I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, as a result of an investment two years ago, we have a much more efficient system that is up and operating. People are availing of it and it has been very successful. Mr. Speaker, we have invested in our park strategy to the tune of $4 million. It is paying off well and the residents of the Province are very much appreciative of it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, every year our office receives a great deal of negative feedback from the online reservation system. That is, at best, confusing to the average person and places people with computers and credit cards at an unfair advantage. Speaking to telephone agents all the way from Quebec, by the way, we learn that all sites are typically booked up within the first fifteen minutes after the online reservation system opens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I ask the minister: Are there any sites in our provincial parks that can be booked without using computers? And if not, what measures are to be taken by your department to ensure that seniors in our Province can have an opportunity to camp in our own local parks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, negativity breeds negativity.

I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, every resident of this Province has equal opportunity to access this site. This is an online system and it is a fair and equitable system, Mr. Speaker. We are receiving comments from it, very positive, Mr. Speaker, and I expect we will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lobster harvesters are going to tie up their boats for four days starting tomorrow. The current price is just making it too difficult to make ends meet and now it is just about getting enough to receive EI for most of these fishermen.

I ask the minister: What is your immediate plan to assist lobster fishermen at this time, or is there a plan right now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, obviously of late there has been a dramatic decrease in the price for lobster, and lobster fishermen, like other fisher people, are certainly having some great difficulties in plying their trade and selling their lobsters this particular year.

We have been monitoring it closely, and have been involved in discussions. As a matter of fact, my information tells me - and I am not exactly sure yet, and it has not been confirmed, but there is an emergency meeting tomorrow of the ministers in Moncton, I believe. I am just awaiting confirmation of that and, of course, I will be sitting on that, bringing forward the concerns of the lobster people in this Province, and trying to ensure that everything has been done to address their particular problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear that. I have heard, actually, Peter MacKay, the federal representative, talk about the federal government may have some form of relief program for lobster harvesters. I do not know if they have indicated anything to you so far, Minister, as to what that program could look like, or if there will be any kind of financial reward in it for the fishermen themselves.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the key word is that Minister MacKay said they may, and I do not go on mays, even though it is the month of May, because we have made requests to the federal government, and the fisher people off our coast who are blocked in with ice for the last number of months have been asking for assistance, so I go into this meeting with some reservations and some expectations that they may do something. That is as much as I will say right now, but I do hope that there will be some relief.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, it brings me to my next question, one we posed a couple of weeks ago, and that is that there are a number of areas along the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland that are blocked with ice and have been since the first of April. In fact, on the Baie Verte Peninsula, I understand, from talking to communities down there, there is a tremendous amount of ice and these people are unable to fish, and they have no income. Most Canadians have gotten an EI extension in this country, for up to five weeks this spring, except fisher people.

I ask the minister if there have been any further discussions with the federal government around extending EI to fishermen in this part of the country this year as a result of the ice conditions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the hon. member that I join with her in making sure that we continue to put pressure on our federal government to address that particular situation. As I have already alluded to, there has been tremendous pressure through, I guess, our government, through the various individuals, from the union, to bring about some resolve to that. That has been ongoing, it is obvious; it has not been done.

As I said to you, we will continue to pressure the federal government to move in the direction that they should, to address that particular situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services released the important Clinical Services Review final report. Mr. Speaker, the report says that are significant improvements needed in case planning and documentation, social worker contact, policies and standards, and risk management.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I know that the minister believes this is an extremely important report - she said so this morning – but the report is dated December 2008. I am wondering if the minister could tell the House why it took the government five months to release this very important work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what we released this morning was the Clinical Services Review completed by Susan Abell, a consultant from Toronto, and someone very well respected in the area of child protection and social work.

Mr. Speaker, this report was requested, I think, in the spring of 2008, and completed during the spring and summer months of 2008, and the final report was received by the Department of Health and Community Services in December 2008.

The department had that report. It was certainly used as a planning document for government in order to look at what resources, what may be needed to address the needs of the children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Once I became minister of this department I had the opportunity to review the report, which obviously was just in recent weeks. It was my intention, as soon as we reviewed it, to put it out public so that people could see what review we had, why we had decided to set up a new department, and what work is before us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the report specifically points out that social worker contacts with clients are significantly below what is necessary for maintaining a clinical relationship to support client change.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House if the $2.8 million in the 2009 Budget for twenty-three new positions will be adequate for new hires needed to relieve the present heavy caseloads that will most likely come out of this process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, since 2007 there have been 223 new positions put into the area of Child, Youth and Family Services. Approximately 200 of those positions have gone into the regional authorities.

What is important to note here is, despite the fact that there are problems with almost every area that was looked at in the clinical review, it is not necessarily because of workload. One of the issues that is also noted in this report is that there is no appropriate way to do a workload analysis. So, despite throwing more and more resources into the system, and more workers, it is also an issue that we have not been able, up to this point, to determine how many social workers we need or what skill mix we need, and how many people should be on a particular caseload.

When we looked at this report, and we have accepted the report, one thing that we are committed to doing is completing an appropriate workload analysis which will guide us and be able to inform us as to how many resources we actually need to deliver this service in the Province.

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.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table a summary report of the activities and cost in respect to the Consumer Advocate in relation to insurance matters in respect of the fiscal year commencing April 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 2009.

Further, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, that I shall move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: We have no petitions, and this being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I now call on the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for her private member's resolution.

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

I am very pleased to stand this afternoon in this House and present the following motion:

WHEREAS the present financial assessment tool used by the government to assess home care and home support sets up barriers for people; and

WHEREAS government's new financial assessment tool will not be in place until December 1, 2009; and

WHEREAS the present system discriminates against people who need care at home and people who receive care in institutions; and

WHEREAS seniors, persons living with disabilities, and those living with chronic diseases require home care and home support, some on a daily basis, some on short-term basis and some on a sporadic basis;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately implement a needs-based assessment tool for assessing home care and home support in the Province;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to create a fully-regulated home care and home support system.

The seconder is the Member for Port de Grave.

I am very pleased this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to stand before the House and to highlight the importance of the motion that I have brought this afternoon. It puts a spotlight on a very important issue that affects many hundreds of families across this Province.

As one who looked after a close family relative and organized her care, I appreciate first-hand the dedication, commitment and personal sacrifice required of those who become home care workers. I also appreciate the sense of isolation involved for the individual needing care, and for the families, and that there is a lack of government support and access to services for many.

We have to look at the fact that so many people cannot afford home care. $7.5 million was allocated for the development of a new financial assessment tool in the Budget for 2009-2010, but this assessment tool is still based on financial eligibility. This new assessment tool will not end the inconsistencies that currently exist across the system.

We need to abolish the financial needs assessment, which means that people who need care would be given the resources depending on their level of physical and medical need, not based on what care they can afford – and we would not be the first province in Canada to do so. A needs-based system would address people's needs on an individual basis. It would support care at home and in the community, and institutional care.

When we continue to have programs where we cap eligible income, there is always somebody on the other side of that threshold who cannot afford to pay for their home care, and that is the basic flaw with the system that we have. We should have a home care program based on need.

Where provinces have good home care programs, such as Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, they base it on need, not financial eligibility. In Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, home care, as with health care, is free for all people who require it, no matter what the basis of that requirement.

Such a program would give greater power and choice to people needing care, and to their families, and it would take away the fear of financial and family burdens associated with long-term care in the home.

There is a growing body of evidence that keeping people at home is more than cost-effective. The national evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of home care in 2002 concluded that investing in home care saves money. At the same time, investing in home care improves the quality of life for people who would otherwise be hospitalized or institutionalized in long-term care facilities.

For many seniors, the services they need most to maximize health and independence and keep them out of institutions are non-nursing professional home support services. Government needs to expand home care and home support services in order to enable seniors to maintain their independent lifestyles wherever possible. We must explore initiatives which would further the ability of seniors to age in place and continue living close to their families. From my own personal experience, I cannot tell you how wonderful it is to be able to keep your loved one at home and, in the case of an elderly person, to have that loved one die in his or her own bed.

In some instances, with regard to our families in Newfoundland and Labrador, the entitlements are there; people just have to overcome bureaucratic nightmares to access them. So, even though they can get home care they still have many barriers to face. We want to eliminate that. We have just been through that in my office with one family in particular who went through months and months of trying to get home care and then being assessed and finally getting it, but months of suffering went on in that family because of the system as it currently is.

Seniors, persons living with disabilities, and those living with a chronic disease or in an acute phase of a chronic disease, do not have the ability to deal with barriers when they are ill. A person's home care and home support needs can change continually, and there also must be a continual provision for reassessment that should be built into the system as well.

Many low-income seniors who need home care cannot get it because the assessment process is too restrictive and government has refused to change it. I do understand that government is coming up with a new tool but, as I said a moment ago, the tool is still based on financial assessment.

The present assessment tool requires high co-pay, so people do not have enough left for other needs. About 40 per cent of applicants are denied subsidy because the eligible income levels are too low. Even in provinces where they still require co-pay, the co-pay in most provinces is much less than what we have here in ours.

The government's new assessment tool will not come into effect until December 1, and when it does it will still leave people behind. There are many effects of poorly organized long-term care and home care, and I want to talk about some of these effects.

We have been waiting for a long-term care report for almost a year now, and we continue to wait. The 2003 study at Memorial looked at the need for long-term care beds in St. John's in the present and in the future. In the next decade the need will not be for high-level nursing home beds, Levels III and IV, but rather for lower-level personal care home beds, Levels I and II. An estimated 20 per cent of all nursing home beds are currently occupied by people who do not need the high level of care. Their needs could be better provided in a personal care home, or at home with home care.

If that 20 per cent were moved to more appropriate care in their homes it would be cheaper for government. It would provide a higher quality of life to many seniors, it would free up Level III and IV beds for those who really need higher levels of care, who are on the wait-lists and who are waiting in hospitals.

We have some problems with the existing long-term care facilities in this Province. Each facility has only one to two levels of care. Facilities should have all levels of care. Because of the fact that in facilities you do not have one through to four, we have situations where husbands and wives are being separated into different institutions because one may be Level II and one is Level IV and they cannot be taken care of in the same institution. Such separation causes real hardships and stress.

Also, the long-term care assessment tool needs to be revised. As we know, we did have a change in the assessment tool in this year's Budget. Now applicants must turn over their incomes and get to keep a stipend of $150 a month whereas before it was $125, but this assessment tool also needs to be replaced.

In looking at home care we also, though, have to look at the needs of the workers, their wages, their conditions and their training. I have heard from home care workers who already receive a low wage that they are preparing food and bringing it in for people that they care for because the people they care for do not have enough food in their homes. Workers are subsidizing the system they are already subsidizing by not receiving decent wages. We all know that what home care workers are paid is just way too low. Yes, slightly above the minimum wage but nowhere near reflecting the care that they give to people.

Government announced $16.5 million to increase hourly subsidy rates which should go directly to the employees, but our home care system does not give government the authority to mandate that at present. In the past, subsidies have been increased and the worker has not always received the increase.

Pay right now is $9.29 an hour or less. Most workers receive no benefits such as paid leave and must pay for things like protective clothing and travel between work sites. They work split shifts and seven-day weeks often without overtime pay. Of course, agencies are having trouble recruiting and keeping workers and are asking government for a higher allowance to pay higher wages. Of course, this becomes a factor if we make home care more accessible and more people can get home care paid for, we then have to deal with the issue of training and better wages and getting more people into the system. The tensions within the system right now are great.

Back in November, 2008, the Victorian Order of Nurses in Corner Brook said it would no longer offer home support services to clients whose costs are covered by government. A St. John's based agency, CareGivers, was considering the same action. Government pays agencies just slightly over $13 an hour. I think it is $13.69 for government paid clients, which is about $1.50 less than agencies charge clients who are not government paid. The CareGivers agency said the government does not pay enough to cover operating costs and leave even a small profit.

Those who work for individuals and not through an agency are exempt from receiving Workers' Compensation, which is an unacceptable situation. Workers receive such little pay that they cannot afford to pay for training, and yet, provincial standards require that a home support worker training program should include, at the very least, an orientation to the philosophy of community-based services and services in the home, community and interpersonal skills, orientation to relevant programs, home management skills, First Aid and infection control procedures.

Lately, we have had home care workers talk to us about this particular issue of infection control procedures. Some of them are working in very dangerous work situations without any rights and without anybody taking care of their needs as workers. We have many areas of training that need to happen. The workers cannot afford to do it and agencies have stopped doing it.

Government must put more money into home care or pay a higher price as seniors are forced into high cost facilities. Government must allocate home care based on need, remove the cap on hours per week, set and monitor standards of care. Government must reorganize home care into a public service as part of our health care system. Government must extend financial assistance to family members to provide home care. Government must give home support workers wage parity with workers in long-term care facilities, compensate for travel between work sites. Government must invest in standardized, affordable training for home support workers and set wages to reflect the level of training that they must have. Government must release the long-term care in home support strategy so that we know what government is proposing in the future.

We have consistently called for a universal, publicly funded and managed home care system. Home care is an integral part of health care. A public home care system would allow seniors and others who need home care to stay in their own homes, which is the lower cost option for government, as well as the fairest option for people who need assisted living. We must stop health care discrimination. Home care should be treated the same as the public health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House of Assembly to vote for this motion.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed an honour for me to get up and to speak to this NDP motion today.

I always talk about, and I have talked about many times in this House of Assembly, political ideology. I would like to think, and I honestly believe actually, that we are probably the most left-leaning, socially conscious Progressive Conservative government ever, probably, in the history of Canada. We are certainly not, by far - we are not a right-leaning group of people. We have done an awful lot for social aspects within our Province. I always talk about our Poverty Reduction Strategy. I think it is into $120 million-odd now.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about this motion and about most of the NDP policies. As a matter of fact, I am a very left-leaning Conservative and I would say, ideologically, I am probably as left in a lot of cases as many of the NDP. As a matter of fact, it always strikes me as odd that the NDP has never caught on here in this Province. The New Democratic Party have a lot of the ideals and a lot of principles that the people of this Province actually believe in, but there is one key reason that I believe why the people have never bought into the party like they probably should, ideologically. It is because of the reality of the costs of most of the things that they preach they should have.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be realistic. When we ask for things we have to be realistic on the financial piece, how much this is going to cost. We are all taxpayers. We all have to pay for it. Certainly, I am going to outline a number of issues here in a minute that has no cost into it. As the Leader of the NDP spoke, I could not help but hear: more money, more money. I cannot tell you how many times she said it but certainly several times. Just on this issue alone we heard words like: remove the cap; it should be a public service; extended financial assistance; wage parity; travel money; training money; a universally, publicly-funded home care; a public health system, it should be like the public health system. This is an area - of course, there is not a person in this House, and I know I can speak for everyone on our side, where anybody that needed home care would love the ability to say: yes, here it is; whatever you need, here is the home care and we will provide it. Mr. Speaker, there is a reality to that.

The Member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi referenced other provinces, and there are different arrangements in other provinces. Actually, there is very little consistency across the country but what she failed to point out is that there are caps; that caps exist in these provinces. So you do not go in and get everything you need. I just forget now which one of –I believe it is in Saskatchewan, but I stand to be corrected, whereby they provide everyone with some form of home care but the cap does exist, Mr. Speaker. It is a wonderful thing to have endless amounts of money, but I fear if we, as a government, ever took on some of the wishes of the NDP, we would need a budget – we have a Budget now of between $5 billion and $6 billion. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, we would probably need a budget of somewhere between $15 billion and $20 billion.

Mr. Speaker, that is not realistic, and as the people of Ontario found out a few short years ago when Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario, with his ideals and his thinking, and the people bought into it, he almost ruined the province. He almost bankrupted it - eight years ago.

MS MICHAEL: Eighteen.

MR. FRENCH: He almost bankrupted the province, is what he did, and those ideologies exist today with the Leader of the NDP, who does not usual get riled up and interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, but for some reason today I must be hitting a nerve somewhere along the way.

What I am going to do, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the NDP has stuck around to listen, because I want to outline some of the things that she has cited over the last number of years.

I believe it was last year we had the Minister of Finance going around the Province with a debt clock, and it showed that every second and every minute and every hour the debt rang up as the meeting went on. I always said, Mr. Speaker, we should have an NDP calculator, because every time the NDP stands up and makes a suggestion we should roll it up on the tally. At the end of the year we should roll it up in big numbers and print it somewhere so that everybody in this Province can see it, because most of the stuff they talk about is absolute motherhood. It is stuff that we would all love to have, but - as a friend of mine says, it is all about the Queen, in referencing money - certainly we have to do it within our means. As I have heard people say, there is only so long you can buy the groceries on a credit card, so we have to live within our means. Sometimes that is unfortunate, but we have to be realistic.

The topic she is talking about, home care in itself, this year alone there is a $35 million investment into home care and home care initiatives in this current Budget. So, to say that we have forgotten about it and certainly put it on the back burner, nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. She talked about an internationally recognized tool for how we assess people. It is also something that we have talked about this year.

Mr. Speaker, I know the following speakers are going to get into the details and intricacies of our plan this year, but this is one thing I want to point out to the NDP. When they talk about we are doing nothing, and we have forgotten about people in home care, nothing could be further from the truth.

Just to give you this example – and these are real examples. These are real people, real incomes that I am about to read out here in the House. This is not something we have made up to make it fit. This is real stuff.

A single person – a single senior, actually - with a monthly income of $1,169, had allowable monthly expenses of $874, which mean their client contribution using the needs tool – the tool that the NDP would like to see, a needs assessment tool – would have been $295, would have been their commitment.

This year, Mr. Speaker, we have changed that. The $295 is not what they have to contribute again. Their current contribution will be $15. As of December of this year, they will be saving $280 on client contribution. That is for a single senior with an income of $1,169.

Mr. Speaker, the other one that I want to mention is a couple with a monthly income of $2,155. If they had monthly allowable expenses of $1,078 they would have been expected to contribute $1,077 of their monthly income toward their care. Under the current arrangement that is coming in place this year, and one of the things that we as a government have done to recognize the needs of people in home care, their contribution now will be $124. That gives them $953 per month that they did not previously have, that they now will have to go to other bills, for a better quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the moon, there is no doubt. They are not going to become millionaires; however, we are certainly going to ease the burden on people who need home care in this Province.

It has been highly publicized in the last number of months, the needs that people have in this Province, so as a government and as a caucus we are very much socially conscious. I know I could go around the table and speak to just about everybody around the table that has certainly a very left-leaning ideology, but we are realists. This is where I believe the NDP sometimes, and the Leader of the NDP in this Province, loses their grasp. They forget, Mr. Speaker.

I want to just read out and touch on a few things that the NDP has asked for over the last year, or couple of years, and I recommend that people at home watching on TV, or members here in the House, get out their calculator and start adding this up.

Now, there is one thing about an NDP press release or an NDP announcement: you will never see numbers with it. They want this, they want that, they want something else, but you will never see a dollar figure attached. It is very easy to stand up in this House or stand out by the door in front of the media and ask for whatever you want because there is no costing; there is no costing to any of the initiatives they want.

MR. TAYLOR: There are no price tags on the doors of Newfoundland.

MR. FRENCH: Much like no price tags on the doors of Newfoundland, as the Member for The Straits & White Bay North says, Mr. Speaker.

Just to give you a couple of items that the NDP has called for over the last number of years, I have to point this out because most of them, certainly, we would love to see and we would love to do, but there is no costing.

Some of the things - increased funding to Memorial University. Now, who would like to give Memorial University more money? Included in giving them more money, Mr. Speaker, is the wipe out of all post-secondary fees, so free post-secondary training for people wanting to go to school. There is not a thing in this world that any of us would love to do more, but the reality of it is that it is all about the Queen, as my friend says, it is all about the Queen; you have to live within your means. We currently have the lowest tuition fees across the country; however, to make it free is just not there. Like I said, I have children myself who are coming up and they are going to go to school, and certainly I would love, as a parent, to say you have free tuition at Memorial University, but that is not a reality so it is very easy to come off with those motherhood issues.

Another one they touched on was, all medical expenses not covered by medicare or insurance be made 100 per cent claimable. Sure, Mr. Speaker, there is no one disagreeing with that, but can you imagine the cost associated with making everything free across the board? We have just expanded our drug program. Our drug program now covers, over the last year, I think, an extra 100,000 people, ninety-odd thousand people in this Province. Again, there is a social conscience with this government that we try our best but we are realists as well, Mr. Speaker.

More money for agriculture. I think last year there was over $6 million, I believe, I heard announced in agricultural programs and grants. Remove tax on home heating fuels, another thing that, sure, absolutely, everybody would love to do, but what we have done instead of removing the tax, we have given home heating rebates to our most vulnerable in society, the seniors and people who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, we address things. We address many of those issues, because we are a left-leaning socially-conscious Progressive Conservative government; however, there is only so far you can go with many of these things.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP love forming Crown corporation and agencies. There are people who believe the bureaucracy is bloated as it is. I am one to disagree with that, because I know a number of our public servants work quite hard on a regular basis. One of the things that the NDP would strive for is a public corporation to identify new markets and products and assist small and medium-sized companies to develop new value-added products for export.

Mr. Speaker, here we are now we are going to create another level of bureaucracy for small business. I am sure that if you talk to most small business, medium-sized business out there, they will tell you we have enough bureaucracy to deal with. They were delighted when we had the red tape reduction, absolutely delighted. Have to do more were the words they came back with, Mr. Speaker.

Since we have formed government, one of the things we did do was create a department for small business. We have a minister assigned specifically to develop small business in this Province; however, the NDP would like to create a Crown corporation to do that, a public corporation I should add, Mr. Speaker.

Again, a universal pharmacare program for all residents with coverage for equipment and medications. There is no one who could argue that, Mr. Speaker. It is a great thing; however, there is a cost associated.

Mr. Speaker, so far, in these few little points - and I have a stack of them here; I have pages of them here, pages of press releases and announcements - I would say, so far, that if I am not into $400 million or $500 million worth of asks, right off the bat, $400 million or $500 million easy, over and above what we have done, I have not touched on it five cents.

Mr. Speaker, this is what you are dealing with when you are dealing with this type of a motion, this type here that called for a needs-based assessment tool. Like I said, there is no one debating it, but if anybody can walk in off of the street and say I want home care and I need it, and deliver it twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week - that is not to mention the impact that would have on personal care homes in this Province.

Personal care homes currently – and there is a new tool, interRAI it is called, that we are going to redo the assessments. There is $1.1 million approved this year to look at a new process of telling people what level of care they need. Mr. Speaker, is the NDP suggesting that we wipe out all personal care homes? That is certainly what I get from her philosophy. I can assure you, dealing with personal care homes in this Province, who provide second-to-none care, as good a care as you can find anywhere else in North America, for example, I can assure you that it is an industry out there that provides daily care, has been doing it for years and years and years, and is certainly a very, very valuable piece of work in our health care system.

Another thing she talked about was a publicly controlled home care system. So we are going to wipe out all of the agencies. People out there who have agencies, who work for agencies, we are going to wipe them out. Those business people will be put aside. There are people out there in our community who like to do self-managed care. I know a number of families, that is what they want to do. They do not go out and hire an agency; they self-manage. They like to do it themselves. That is what they have chosen to do. They enjoy doing it, and they do it for a reason. Many of them are involved with families of theirs, so certainly they self-manage it. I certainly take my hat off to them.

Mr. Speaker, the wishes go on and on. Like I said, I certainly wish that we had a calculator, we had the NDP adding machine, to add up all of the asks that the NDP has gone for: everything from community-based non-profit housing, which we have put millions and millions of dollars in, and, of course, that should be all free at any time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. FRENCH: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clue up and say there are not many of the policies of the NDP that any person on this side of the House would disagree with. Of course, there will always be the odd one; but, because we are a socially-conscious Progressive Conservative government, certainly we understand. We deal with people. We are parents. We have grandparents. We live in a community and we are close to the people we live - after all, if you live in Newfoundland and Labrador you are certainly close to the people you represent in politics. You are never far from the on-the-ground issues if you are doing any kind of job at all. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be able to talk motherhood issues and promise the world when basically you do not have to balance the chequebook at the end of the week.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I will take my seat. I know the minister will get up and explain exactly in a little more detail what we do have planned for this year, but I caution people and remind people that there is a bottom line figure attached to every request and everything approved.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly wanted to speak to the motion that was put forward by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, where she is asking for some changes in terms of the home care program in the Province.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have all had our experiences with how the home care program works in this Province. In fact, back a year ago in the House of Assembly there probably was not a day that I did not raise a case of a person in this Province who needed home care and, because of their financial situation, could not afford it and were not eligible for any amount of subsidy from government. One of those cases was the case of Mr. Connors and his wife. You will probably remember it very well, because they became the faces of home care for many seniors across this Province.

They were in a situation where his wife, who was elderly and ill, needed care, and they were being assessed through the financial assessment tools used in the Department of Health and Community Services to be able to access home care benefits. They were both pensioners, they were both living on fixed incomes, and after their assessment it was determined that 50 per cent of their income would have to go to cover home care services in the Province.

Now, do I think that was adequate? Absolutely not. In fact, Mr. Speaker, most members in this House felt that it was inadequate. Therefore, there was a review undertaken to look at how we adjust the financial tools for home care so that families like the Connors, who live on fixed incomes, whose incomes are less than $26,000 and $25,000 a year, will be allowed to retain enough of their income - or in this case I would think they should be allowed to retain all of their income - and still be able to access the services of home care.

Mr. Speaker, the government has now said that they are prepared to launch the new financial assessment tools in the Province to determine the eligibility. They say that they are prepared to increase the threshold levels when it comes to income, to ensure that more people become eligible for home care services.

For example, Mr. Speaker, you must remember the case of a disabled woman by the name of Helen Hillier, a very educated, very intelligent young woman who was confined to a wheelchair because of her medical illness, and was receiving supports as a person with disabilities but was not eligible for free home care in all cases because her husband, who happened to be a home care worker himself, was earning a wage; however, that wage was only a low wage. Again, a situation where her husband was not allowed to provide her care, although he was a home care worker - he was intimate with her medical condition and he knew the kind of treatment that she needed because he had worked for her for a number of years before they had married - but all of a sudden he was not allowed to work for her any more and they were not eligible for the level of home care that they required because of the financial situation.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of standards in this Province. For example, if you earn an income that is over $36,000 a year you can still be eligible for some programs of government. You can still be eligible for some subsidization under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. You can earn far more than $15,000 a year – actually, you can earn up to $26,000 a year - and still be eligible for drug benefits in this Province, but all of a sudden if you earn $26,000 a year you have to pay half of it back to government if you want to access home care services, and that is not right.

Mr. Speaker, that is one side of the issue. That is one side of the issue. What this motion does is that it asks that every single person be eligible to receive home care based on their need and not based on any other components. Mr. Speaker, we have a little problem with this, because we think that wealth should be a consideration. We think that wealth should be a consideration, but how we measure wealth and how the government opposite has been measuring wealth are two different measurements. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Province who can afford home care. There are a number of people in this Province who can afford home care, and should we, as a government, give them free home care? Maybe if we continue to run the surplus budgets that we have seen it is something we can consider. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, is that can we afford, as a Province, to give a blank cheque to every person who needs home care in the Province, irregardless of how much money they have in the bank? This is the problem that I see with it. If this is a road that we go down, it is only a matter of time when every resident that goes into a long-term care facility or goes into a personal care home, it will not matter that they have a half a million dollars in the bank, the government will be expected to pay 100 per cent for their care. I have a problem with that.

So we have to be careful of the precedents that we set. Am I happy with the program as it is today? No. Do I think it is reaching the amount of people that need the service? Absolutely not! I think it is causing financial hardship for a lot of people, but the way to fix that is not to give a blank cheque to every single person in the Province who needs to access the service. I think that there are other ways. There are other ways, and I know there are provinces right now that do give free home care services to people in that province. We have talked to a lot of them, and it does not mean that they are without their problems when it comes to their health care system either. It does not mean that they still do not have problems with the way that things are operating.

Then it becomes a fight, Mr. Speaker, over whose need is greatest. Then it becomes a fight over what is constituted to be a need for service by a client and by the state, because there is always going to be a cap. Whenever governments administer a program, there always has to be a cap. So, even when you say that everyone is eligible based on need, then it becomes a different determination of those needs. That is what we are finding out from the other provinces that have gone down this road, that there is still a lot of dissatisfaction. So just to say that it is free and it is based one need, will maybe not fix the problems in this Province either.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors that have to be looked at. First of all, we have a problem in recruiting home care workers in this Province. If we are going to spend a large sum of money in home care, instead of paying for services for those with the big bank accounts and who can afford the service themselves, why not be paying more money to our home care workers? Why not be paying more money to home care workers to ensure that we have good, trained home care workers that are going to be stable in the Province, that as soon as the minimum wage rises they are not going to run down the road and take a job with Tim Hortons? As was the case in one community with one client, where three people quit their job as home care workers and went to work at Tim Horton's because the minimum wage was high enough, they could get a decent pay, they did not have the physical intense labour of the job, they did not have the mental stress of the job. So, if we are going to spend money, why not spend it to increase the wages and the benefits to home care workers?

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in this motion by the Leader of the NDP, it says: "…that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to create a fully-regulated home care and home support system." I agree with that 100 per cent. I do not mean that government needs to take over all of the home care services in the Province and close out all the agencies, but what I do mean is that government needs to fund the service appropriately. Government needs to ensure that there are regulations in place for that sector and that they are followed. Government needs to ensure that home care workers are properly trained, that they are properly paid, that they have proper benefits. I have no problem with that recommendation. They need to be the overseers of the service to ensure, just like we do with every other service in the Province, that it is being done in the appropriate manner.

Mr. Speaker, the first BE IT RESOLVED I do have some concern about. My concern is that the only factor used to assess people for home care services would be a needs-based assessment tool. I have some problem with that. It is for the couple of reasons I have indicated. One, as soon as government says a service is only going to be based on need and no financial requirement, all of a sudden what constitutes a need changes. The standards become different. People who feel they need it find it harder to access, because all of a sudden they do not meet the criteria. That is what we have found in the other provinces that are delivering this service.

The other thing that we have concerns about, Mr. Speaker, is we feel that people who can afford this service should have to pay, just like they pay to stay in a personal care home, just like they pay a portion for other services. Mr. Speaker, we have a problem saying that people who are financially wealthy in this Province should get 100 per cent care on their home care services, because we feel in doing that a lot of people who need it will be left out because there is no bottomless pit. There is no bottomless pit in this Province. It does not matter what government sits in power, they have to be fiscally responsible. It does not matter that it is the people opposite today, it could be another group tomorrow, but there has to be a premise in terms of fiscal management that does not exist in this motion.

Mr. Speaker, there also has to be a level of service delivered to people. I really do feel that government could set an appropriate threshold for income in this Province so that people who need home care can access it and they can access it freely if their income falls below what is considered an adequate rate.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I feel that when people apply for programs like this that there are other factors that have to be considered, such as their mortgages, such as their cost of living for food and for other medical services. Those things also need to be taken into consideration. You just cannot look at a person's income and say they are making $35,000 or $40,000 a year, therefore they should have to pay 50 per cent of the cost for their home care. That does not work, Mr. Speaker. You also need to look at what their other financial obligations are. This might be an individual whose medications are costing them $1,000 or $1,500 a month. This might be an individual who is required to go out to have special treatments or therapies because of medical conditions. They might have mortgages on their homes. They may have expenses such as light and heat. They need to eat. There has to be some kind of assessment done based on providing for their essentials such as food. Mr. Speaker, when you take all of these things into consideration then I think you can have a better program.

Mr. Speaker, I do have an amendment that I want to propose. I actually sent the Page out with it twenty minutes ago and he is not back with it yet. I do not know if we could get that motion brought back. It was twenty minutes ago, so I am ready to propose the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Government House Leader, the Leader of the Opposition has an amendment to propose and her time for speaking has almost expired. I wonder, for the purposes of the amendment that she wishes to propose, if we can, by leave, allow that beyond the next speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the resolution be amended by deleting the clause commencing with the words, "BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement immediately a needs-based assessment tool for assessing home care and home support in the Province" and substituting the following, "BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately implement a hybrid assessment tool whereby needs are assessed first and financial means are assessed second in order for residents to access home care and home support in the Province."

That motion is moved by myself and seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will take a brief recess while the Chair and the Table have an opportunity to review this amendment and determine whether or not the amendment is in order.

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

The Table and the Chair determine the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to take a couple of moments to respond to and comment on the private member's resolution today, put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

I will not get into reading the details of the motion, but the thrust of the motion speaks to what kind of responsibility government might have to provide home support services to the individual clients who need it, and to what extent that should be fully funded by government.

Some of the commentary that she made with respect in support of her motion, we all, I think, recognize that home support services are a critical piece of the programs and services provided by each of our four health authorities.

We, too, support the notion that as a government, through our regional health authorities, we want to be able to support living independently, we want to be able to have people stay at home as they age, we want people who are living with disabilities to be able to be integrated into the community and maintain a level of independence with some level of support in their home to make sure that that becomes a reality.

The thrust of this motion though would suggest that any and all responsibilities for those services rests with government, and that regardless of your fiscal capacity, whether you have lots of money or very little money, then you will get this free of cost and that you will have it without any kind of limitation or restriction. So if someone suggests that you need fifteen or twenty or twenty-four hours a day service on the basis of need, that it is automatically provided to you in your home without any client contribution whatsoever, regardless of your income.

Also, too, it suggests that other forms of supports, if you look at a full continuum of programs and services that we provide to individuals who live in the community, whether they are seniors or persons with disabilities, there is other models of care, there are other models of service. What are some of those other options that might be available, other than home support that you might want to explore?

The way this motion is worded here is that we would ignore all of those other options for care, all of those other options for services, all of those other options along that continuum and we would ignore any and all of those suggestions and provide 100 per cent coverage for the needs of individuals living with home support. As my colleague commented earlier around the desire to have those kinds of services and programs available, it has to be limited in some fashion. There has to be some caveat here to put some degree of realism into the discussion with respect to our fiscal capacity as a Province.

Already, since we formed government in 2003, I think with the exception of 2004, but subsequent years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, each and every year we have seen significant growth in the investment that our government has made in our home support budget, on two fronts. One, in supporting the salaries for those individuals who work in this sector, we have provided annual increases each of the last four years. In fact, this year's budget talks about an increase as of April 1, as of July 1, and as of January 1, 2010. All with a view of ensuring that we are making sure individuals who work in this sector are seeing some increases in their salaries. Historically, those increases have only been tied to the minimum wage increases. This year, on July 1, this is not only an increase to keep abreast with the minimum wage, but also includes some additional money to enhance further the salaries paid to home support workers.

I want to just remind people of the comment made by colleague earlier, in terms of the fiscal capacity. I am delighted, by the way, that the Leader of the Official Opposition supports that view, because she too, a moment ago, very clearly articulated that she does believe that we do need to have some kind of a financial assessment. She is suggesting, as we have, that we need to recognize that some individuals have significant means and that programs such as this are designed and should be designed to protect those individuals who are most vulnerable in society.

If you look at the thrust of what our government has introduced in this most recent Budget, particularly. Look at what we have done in trying to invest significant amounts of money in poverty reduction. Some of the other things we have done with our student aid program, trying to assist young families. All with the view of recognizing that we need to support those individuals who are at the lower income levels, individuals who are probably more vulnerable and would find themselves falling victim of their personal financial circumstance and recognize that as a Province, we only have so much fiscal capacity.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, when you look at – I just want to make a reference to a grid that was tabled in this year's Budget that talked about the client contribution calculation. Right now, today, with what we are proposing and what we have introduced – not what we are proposing, what we have actually introduced and announced in this year's Budget, will see individuals who make $13,000 a year or less, make no client contribution at all towards home support. We will see families whose family income is $21,000 or less, again, no client contribution at all towards home support.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a significant improvement on anything that we have ever had in our history in this Province. This reflects, though, a level of thinking by our government that recognizes those who are most vulnerable, those who are on the lower income levels need the most support. So if we have to make a choice – and we always have to make choices, budgets are about choices. If we have to make a choice, well where we invest the money, who do we support, what population do we focus our attention on, are those individuals on the lower income levels, because they need the most support. Those individuals who make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, they do not need the same level of support as someone who makes $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Just to go back to my grid a moment ago. I said, as an individual, if you make $13,000 or less then you will pay zero towards your home support but then if you go from $13,000 to $18,000, you are still only 18 per cent. So what we have tried to do is to give consideration to those individuals who are making less than $20,000, $25,000 a year as individuals, make very little contribution towards their home support, which is, I believe, consistent with the thrust of our Poverty Reduction Strategy, consistent with the thrust of some of our other programs.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I see a motion coming forward as we are seeing here, and I will not repeat it but my colleague from Conception Bay spoke most eloquently about this. This has added to a long list of things that we have heard the New Democratic Party introduce in this House as being things that we would need to do, should do, and should automatically be doing. In an ideal world, possibly if we had no limits at all in terms of the money that was available to us, we were not forced to make choices in a budgetary process, we may want to do a lot of these things, and this might be one of them, I say, Mr. Speaker. We might want to have free health care, not just those that are covered under the Canada Health Act but all services that we provide by our regional health authorities would be available free of cost, but there is a cost. You may not pay it at the end, but you will pay it as a part of your general tax revenues coming into the provincial coffers. So there has to be some kind of balance that we need to give consideration to.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make reference to the proposed amendment. When I read the proposed amendment put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition, she talks about a hybrid. Mr. Speaker, in as much as I said a second ago that I agree with her and I acknowledge her agreement with us as a government, she too acknowledges that we need to ensure that there is a financial assessment process in place. So, when I read her resolution it is somewhat redundant. The resolution is redundant, or the proposed amendment is somewhat redundant because what she talks about here is a process where someone would assess an individual's need for home support services, determine whether or not they actually need home support at all and determine what level of home support they would need and secondly, then to determine what the client contribution would be. That is what the proposed amendment to the resolution actually attempts to do.

Mr. Speaker, on the surface, what she is saying here is that what government's current practice is is perfectly fine. This is a first, Mr. Speaker. Let that be recorded in Hansard. This is a first for the Leader of the Official Opposition, to stand in this House and put in writing an acknowledgement that she agrees totally with what government's current practice would be. Because what she has tried to express here, and how she has written this proposed amendment, clearly reflects the current practice of government in that we do – if some individual today is in a position, or finds themselves in a position where they need home support to be able to live with some degree of independence, they make contact through one of our four regional health authorities and there is an individual assessment that gets completed to determine the individual's functional needs: what kind of support might they need, the nature of that support, and the number of hours that the person might need. Secondly, and only secondly, then there is a determination of what their client contribution would be.

As I just clearly articulated a moment ago, this year's Budget saw a significant improvement in the financial assessment tool very much focused on those individuals at the lower income thresholds, that they will pay little or not contribution towards their home support. Quite the contrast from what the past experience has been. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was looking at one example of where a person is currently paying some $900 a month towards their home support. With the implementation of our new financial assessment tool that amount is reduced to less than $100 a month, a significant improvement for those individuals on the lower-income thresholds.

Just in closing, the proposed amendment that has been put forward by the Opposition party is a redundant motion because it reflects current practice. I will not be supporting the amendment because it is a redundancy. All we need to be saying is - the Leader of the Opposition should be standing and saying: I totally agree with what the government is currently doing. I totally agree with their financial assessment tool, and I totally agree with their approach for determining a person's level of service that they need. Because exactly that is what she is proposing in the motion. I think the proposed amendment is somewhat redundant.

With respect to the main motion itself, Mr. Speaker, just to get back to that for a moment, clearly the main motion is attempting to hold government to a position where we will ignore a person's ability to pay and we will give to the rich the same way as we will give to the people who are not so rich, and the same way we will give to those people who are actually below the poverty line. We will make no distinction between any class of people in the Province, and if you need it you will get it. If you have lots of money there is no need to make any contribution at all.

All that will really do is drain money away from valuable programs, whether it is in Health or whether it is in Education, whether it is in HRLE or any other kind of social programs that government may provide, or in some of the other economic stimulus packages that we might put in place.

Clearly, we want to make sure that we are fair and we are equitable and those people in society who are the most vulnerable get the benefit of this Province's resources, get the maximum benefit from this Province's newfound wealth and prosperity that we will enjoy well into the future.

Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, again, in summary: the proposed amendment to the resolution is redundant. We do not need it. The main body of the motion is not something that this government or any government really has the fiscal capacity to make commitments to provide services to individuals regardless of their means and will provide in the same fashion to the very rich as we provide to those who are much more compromised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make those few comments, and I look forward to the vote on the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If she speaks now, she shall close debate.

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak again as I close the debate.

I have a number of points that I want to make, and the first one I want to make is to remind all members of the House the kind of society that we have in Canada and the kind of society that we are a member of, as a Province of Canada.

When, in the 1960s, this country looked at the possibility of having a health care program, it looked at some basic principles as to why we should have a universal health care program, and it was based on a very basic human right, and that was the right to be taken care of, to have our health care needs taken care of, and we put in place in this country a health care program that is universal. Nobody, no matter who it is, in this country, goes to a hospital to an emergency room or goes into a doctor's office and gets turned away. I go for my regular checkup every year. I go for my regular mammogram. If I have to have X-rays, if I have to have blood tests, no matter what I have to have done, I can have it done. I do not have to worry about if I can pay for it or not. It is a basic right in our country that we have come to expect and we should expect. It does not matter if it is a person who has an income of $10,000 a year or if it is a millionaire or a multi-millionaire or even a billionaire whom we have; everybody in this country has the right to basic medical services.

Now, if somebody has money and wants to get extraordinary services they can pay for it, but we recognize basic medical and health care needs in this country and we recognize that they should be paid for. We all pay for them, because the person who is the millionaire pays a higher income tax and that is what our taxation system is about. Our taxation system is there to ensure that services that we believe are universal services are taken care of.

What I am saying in the motion that I have put on the floor today is that home care, which has to do with, number one, people who are chronically ill; number two, people who are disabled; or number three, people who are momentarily in need of home care because of a disability, a physical disability or even a mental disability, all of which, in one way or another, are related to our health care, that anybody in any of those circumstances should be able to have that service, and it does not matter whether or not the service is coming for somebody who earns $10,000 or $1 million, if it is related to our health care system.

For example, we say - and this is universal across Canada; some do more than this but at least we bought into this one - that if somebody gets released from hospital and it is said that person still requires some care when they go home, we pay for that care. That is part of our system now. That became a bottom line of an agreement with the leaders of the provinces and of the territories. About three years ago, I think, was it, that happened? That you go home from hospital, you have to have care, that care is covered. Everybody gets that. The same way, you are at home and you have been at home, and you have been paying for your own care for years - and I know this one personally because this was our family situation. We paid for the care for our loved one, and the day that it was declared by the community services nurse that my mother was dying, then immediately her home care was paid for. Everything was paid for, from that day on, so we already have recognized that there is home care that we can give, and give it universally, whether somebody earns $10,000 or $1 million, and that is part of the basic principle of our health care system. What I am saying is that it makes all the sense in the world and it is rational, it is not irrational that that be part of our home care system as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have had speakers talking about fiscal responsibility, and fiscal responsibility is something I absolutely believe in. I also know that each party in this room, we all have different ways of looking at things, we all have different priorities, and we make different choices. I would like to look right now at the priorities of the government that is in power in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask members to my left if they would be kind enough - I ask them for their co-operation. The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I ask them to take their private conversations to the outside of the House, please.

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

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

In looking at priorities we learn a lot, and this is what I want to do. I have been hearing the members from the opposite side of the House saying that I do not care about money, that I do not care about putting us in the hole, that I do not have a fiscal sense, I do not have an economic sense, and that is not true. Let's look at figures. You want to add stuff up. I heard people saying, let's add up all the things that the Leader of the NDP has said over the last few years. Well, let's add up choices that this government has made. Let's add them up, and let's add them up very carefully.

In the last two Budgets – this government, first of all, made a decision to go into a very interesting direction, and that was to invest heavily in oil and gas, with equity shares in oil and gas, and with the setting up of Nalcor Energy. Just in the setting up of Nalcor Energy over the past two years this government has put over half a billion dollars into Nalcor Energy. Now, what I am saying to this government is: Is that the choice to make when we have social programs that are so far from being where they should be?

It is like a couple who have two children. They are middle class and they are able to make ends meet, but there are things that they cannot do for the children. One child, for example, maybe needs work done on the teeth, cosmetic work,, but they cannot afford that. It would also help the child in terms of how the child chews, but they still cannot afford it. Their revenue goes up, and at the same time that their revenue goes up somebody says to them: No, you should really invest in real estate because you will get money back from real estate, and in ten years time you might get a good investment. So the couple decide to use their new revenue, not to take care of the child's needs, but to buy real estate.

Now, my colleague, the MHA for Conception Bay South, used a nice homey example, with regard to the time has to come when you do not buy food with Visa. Well, the time also has to come when this government has to ask itself: Is this the moment that you should be making the investments that you are making?

So let's add it up; over a half billion dollars to Nalcor Energy in two years. If people opened up the Consolidated Revenue Fund book and look at the bottom line and look at the details of our budgetary and fiscal situation in this Province right now, cash assets of over $1 billion. Now, we have never had so much in cash assets before. When I say that to people, they say: Well, why does the government need so much in cash assets? Usually it has been $200,000, $300,000, but we are now up to over $1 billion in cash assets when we cannot give a universal home care program. Whereas, Manitoba can give it, Ontario can do it, Quebec can do it, but we cannot do it. Okay.

Where else are we putting money? We are putting money, for example, in the Department of Business, $32 million, only spent $10 million. Right now it has $35 million parked. Why are we all of a sudden feeling that we are so wealthy? We have so much that we can just park money all over the place when we have people in need. This priority; this is choice.

Mr. Speaker, I put to this House, and I put to the people in this Province. With over $1 billion in cash assets, with a choice to put over half a billion into a new energy corporation, with money sitting in various categories in our Budget, money that is not getting used every year, I ask, is it really true that we do not have the money to have a universal home care program? I think the answer is obvious. We do have the money, but this government is not sufficiently recognizing what their responsibility is as a government. It is to take care of the people and to have a taxation system that helps do that.

When this government started tax breaks two budgets ago the tax breaks were not benefiting the people at the bottom, they were benefiting the people at the top. The people in the top tax bracket did not need that tax break. The people who got almost $13,000 a year break, more money back, money that they did not have to pay. We are into several more millions of dollars there of money that got wasted by this government that could have been used in a home care program.

So please do not tell me that I do not know dollars and cents, I know dollars and cents very well. It is a matter of choice. I am not saying this government is not doing a bit here and there. Yes, you are doing a bit here and there but you are making other choices that is stopping you from doing what everybody needs. As I have said before, and I will say over and over again, when you put in limits, when you put in a cap, there is always going to be somebody on the other side of that cap who needs it as much as the person on the inside of the cap, who needs it just as much.

I was talking today to a home care worker. Now let's listen to this carefully. A home care worker - we all know what her income is - with two children. She was speaking about a co-worker who has four children. The co-worker with four children was making something like a couple of hundred dollars over the limit for being able to get a drug card. She could not get a drug card. When she started to earn the little bit of money extra, the drug card was taken away from her. Do you know where that woman is now? That woman, a home care worker, is on social assistance because she had to have a drug card for her children.

The woman I was speaking to, the same situation. She has a couple of children. She has now had her drug card taken away from her. During the first four months that her income went up a bit and put her - it was less than $100 over the limit. This is the truth. This is what caps do. This is what having a cap up does. Somebody is going to be just as much in need on the other side. So the minute her income went over what is the limit for having a drug card, she is allowed to keep the drug card for four months more, and then at the end of those four months her drug card was taken away. The next thing she is going to be on social assistance, like the women with the four children. This is the reality of having a cap, because you will always have the people who are just outside.

Is it crazy for me to be saying that our home care system should be universal like our health care system? I do not think so. Am I a mad woman for saying that? I do not think so. Is it crazy for me to be saying: If Ontario can do it, if Manitoba can do it, if Quebec can do it, why can't we do it when we have in money that I added up here right now, quite a bit of money that we are making choices with. Is it crazy for me to say that perhaps we can have it as well? I am not talking about something that nobody else has. I am talking about something that exists.

Is it crazy for me to say that we can have it here with other provinces, the same way they have it over in European, Nordic countries, in the Scandinavian countries, is that nuts? I do not think so, and neither do the people who are listening to this debate this afternoon either. They do not think it is nuts either. Neither do the people who went through what Mr. Pat Connors went through. I am glad to say that finally his case was paid attention to, I am glad to say that. I felt very good last week when I got a thank you card from Pat and Shirley Connors. I felt very good, but they should not have had to go through the months of what they went through. If we continue having a cap, there will always be a Mr. and Mrs. Connors just outside of the cap always. So if you are worried about the wealthy, tax them higher. Tax them; get more money from them and then that way they will be paying for their home care.

So, Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is coming to a close. I thank my colleagues for the discussion, the debate that we have had on this resolution. Obviously, I am voting for my motion. I am very sorry that I may be the only one, because I believe that this is reasonable. I think it is fiscally responsible and more than fiscally responsible it shows that we understand, as a House of Assembly, that the main responsibility of government is not to build business, it is not to build business, it is to take care of people fiscally but take care of people number one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution as brought forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is defeated.

On motion, resolution defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day and debate on the resolution being concluded, this House now adjourns until 1:30 of the clock, tomorrow being Thursday.