House of Assembly
Newfoundland and Labrador

Private Member's Motion 
Wednesday, March 11, 2008

Home |  In the House | Private Member Motions

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you speaking to the point of order?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

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

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

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will read the amendment.

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

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

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

All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The amended motion is carried.

On motion, amended motion carried.

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

This House is now adjourned.