House of Assembly
Newfoundland and Labrador

Private Member's Motion 
Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Home |  In the House | Private Member Motions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and present the private member’s motion as it relates to home care services in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are bringing forward this motion at this particular time because we have been contacted by a number of people out there in the Province who require home care services but, at the current time, are not able to access that service. One of the reasons for that is because of the financial assessment tools that are currently being used to calculate their eligibility.

These assessment tools have been in place for the past ten years. Probably going back ten years ago they may have been adequate, when you look at what the cost of living was at that particular time in comparison to what the cost of living is today.

Mr. Speaker, today, as you know, we have seen the price of gasoline and home heating fuel increase tremendously. In fact, over that period of time we have seen home heating fuel go somewhere from about sixty-nine cents a litre up to what it is today - $1.10 or $1.15. We have seen the price of gasoline increase from around eighty cents a litre up to $1.35 and over $1.40 in many places in the Province.

Also over that course of time the cost of electricity has increased; we have had several rate increases both through Newfoundland Light and Power and through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. In addition to that, we have had a higher price of goods being provided to people, so the entire standard in terms of the cost of living has increased but the tool in which people are assessed for home care has not changed.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the case of one particular couple in this Province, and that is Patrick Connors and his wife. We have heard their case, Mr. Speaker, and I have referred to them on several occasions because I think they are the face of what the need is for home care service in this Province today. I think they are the example of what many seniors out there in Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with in terms of challenging times, dealing with sickness and illness in their home, but yet not being able to afford the services that they require.

Mr. Connors and his wife were in situation whereas, when they were assessed for home care and they were looked at, their income, which was approximately $25,000 a year, once they were assessed for home care they were told that you would have to contribute about $1,100 a month towards your home care services, which meant that they would be left with half their annual income to live on; and, over the course of a twelve month period, instead of being able to live on the full $25,000 in earnings they had, they were being told you have to live on $12,000 in earnings if you are to be able to qualify for home care.

Mr. Speaker, we felt that this was a serious enough issue that it should be raised in the House of Assembly and it should be raised and introduced to the attention of government, and we did that prior to the Budget. We had hoped that in the Budget some allowances would be made to deal with this problem, and I think that we were actually shocked that there were not; because, even though we knew that government may not come out with a solution immediately to fix the program on a long-term basis, we thought, at least with the recognition and the understanding that this need was there, that they would at the very minimum commit at that time to doing a full review of the financial assessment tools and put in place an emergency program that they could deliver home care to those families that needed it until there was a more permanent-based program in place. Unfortunately, that did not happen and that is why we have had to bring forward this motion today to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we are not bringing forward this motion just to say to government that we want you to do something. This is not about politics. It is about finding real solutions on an interim basis for those people in our Province who need it; and, Mr. Speaker, there are many out there today who are falling through the cracks. Not only are seniors, but people who are living with disabilities in their lives and require home care services as well, so there is a gap, and I think the first thing government needs to do is recognize that gap exists.

In the meantime, what we are proposing, and we think it is a sensible solution to be looked at, what we are proposing is that, based on the government’s own benchmarks that they established in the Budget – and, Mr. Speaker, they did establish a benchmark that said any person, any senior, individual or married couple, that would earn up to $31,072 or $31,092 on an annual basis would now qualify for the Seniors’ Benefit.

What we are saying is, use your same income benchmarks – your same income benchmarks - to assess people for emergency home care services that would contribute to a minimum of ten hours a week of home care to those families who need it, free of charge, until there is another program in place.

We thought that was a reasonable solution. There were other solutions that we could have considered. In fact, the Leader of the NDP yesterday offered up the solution of the low-income drug program, and we did look at that as well; but, in fact, even looking at those thresholds that were established, there would still be a tremendous number of people who would fall through the cracks, and would still not be able to access the home care that they required.

In fact, Patrick Connors and his wife would have been one of those couples that would have fallen through the cracks on the low-income support program, because their income was at $25,000 a year – which, in fact, they would have been required to pay up to 70 per cent, I think, of their home care services, which is still a tremendous amount of money for them to have to pay for that particular service. So at the end of the month they would not be paying $1,100, they would probably be paying $900, but still it was not an affordable program for those people. It may meet the needs of some individuals, but it still will not meet the needs of many who need the program.

There may be other solutions that government could look at – and I am sure there are – but we wanted to offer up at least an example of what could be done, and it could be rolled out fairly quickly to respond to an emergency need. It would be using government’s own benchmarks around income levels that they have established for seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that you can always turn a deaf ear to any issue in the Province that you want to. As leaders and governments that govern and make decisions it is easy to turn a blind eye, but, Mr. Speaker, it is harder when a situation continues to stare you in the face. That is what I have been experiencing, case after case after case of seniors in this Province and people with disabilities who are falling through the cracks in homecare programs. They are not just in my district, Mr. Speaker, they are in districts of members all over the Province.

I am sure there are many members in this House of Assembly today who know of cases in their own districts where there are people looking for homecare services but cannot get it because they would have to give up half their income in order to avail of the service. If they are not in your districts, I challenge you, because I think I have heard from people from almost every single region of the Province to date. I would have to think long and hard if there is at least a district I have not heard from someone in regarding this homecare program. The need is not limited to my district or limited to Mr. Connors and his family, but it is a problem that is extended to a number of families in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we agree that there needs to be a longer term overhaul of this program. I will be the first to admit that after ten years the formula should always be changed, not just for this program but for all programs that institute social benefits to people in the Province, simply because the cost of living continues to change, the price we pay for things continues to go up, and therefore so should the income levels upon which we depend.

I don’t think it is fair at all by today’s standards, and I think the minister recognizes that, that it isn’t fair by today’s standards to expect any family to be able to live on $550 a month of their total earnings just so they can qualify for a homecare program. I think that needs to be recognized.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is, the homecare that I speak of is not a homecare service whereby someone comes into your house and makes your bed and does your laundry and makes dinner for you. It is a service that requires tremendous personal efforts on behalf of homecare workers. It means caring for, in lots of cases, the very basic needs of individuals. Without that kind of support they are really totally dependent upon family members and other members, if they can find them, to help out.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are fortunate enough and lucky enough to have a family member who can provide that service, there is still no remuneration for that family member. They do not get paid, and I think that is a problem as well. I think that everybody in society is prepared to give a level of care, but I hear from people all the time who have to give up their jobs, their full-time job themselves in order to provide home care to a loved one, whether it be a spouse, whether it be another family member, a parent or grandparent, a sister or a brother, but it is happening all the time. Because they cannot afford the home care services while they work, often in cases they end up giving up work, then they have no income, then they are totally dependent upon the system to provide for their basic income needs, plus all their other supplementary benefits. I think we are really pushing people into a corner that is dragging them down and not lifting them up, that is pushing them into places where they are not able to give back to society the way that they want to. As you know, just because you have issues that require you to oftentimes need home care it does not mean that you do not have tremendous skills and other abilities and knowledge to offer in society. If you are totally consumed about how your personal most intimate needs are going to be met everyday in your own home, it really does restrict you in the other abilities that you are able to perform in.

Mr. Speaker, I have known that to be the case with many people who live with disabilities in particular, who require home care services. They should not have to be placed on a list. They should not have to jump through hoops to qualify for basic, essential services in this Province. I think if you were to sit down and take a good hard look, and look into the eyes of people like Pat Connors and his wife, you will see the very example of what existing is for many, many people in this Province. I think that it has come time, a time when we have more financial ability than we have ever had in our lives, a time when we are able to re-juggle monies and reallocate monies to meet essential needs in this society.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be critical of programs and initiatives that government is doing because I am sure every single thing that government does or announces benefits someone, but it is very difficult to put your head around $15 million going into a caribou study in the Province when you have seniors sitting at home who do not have home care services. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but for me, that is a very difficult one to put my head around. In fact, if I were to stand in any public community centre in my district, and I am sure every member here, and ask people if they thought that spending $15 million into this program was a far better investment for this Province than it was putting it into an enhanced home care program for people out there who need this service, I think you know what the answer would have been.

Even people that this caribou study is being conducted for are complaining. I have received a number of e-mails from people out there who are in the agriculture business, who are in the outfitting business, who tell me that this is to do with a coyote problem in the Province, and this is where we should be redirecting our energies and that some of this money is going into areas that they do not see as a necessity. I am not an expert on this stuff. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that to be the case or not. What I do know is that it is very hard to swallow on any given day, when you have issues regarding people who desperately need home care services to function in our society, to have a quality of life, but yet, you have people who are more prepared to put money into caribou studies that cost up to $15 million. I am sorry, but it is hard for me to sell. Maybe you can sell it. Maybe you can convince those in your districts who need this service that that was a better investment. Somehow I doubt it, but I challenge you to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to conclude my remarks, I hope at the end of the discussion. I hope that members in the House will see this. We want government to seriously look at interim measures that can be allocated and we certainly hope today that members here will stand and vote, and that this will be put in place to help alleviate some of those problems.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice for me to get up today. Actually, it could not be more fitting of a time, I guess, for me to speak on this motion today. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, before I get into it too much, this is a formula that has been around, I think the speaker before me said ten years, and I think it may have been tweaked with a couple of times. I think it was tweaked with a little bit since then but generally it has been around for a long, long time. There is no doubt, and there is nobody in government circles, certainly, questioning the need to review this whole policy and this whole evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we do not do it in a piecemeal fashion. I think it is very, very important that we do it right, that we take the time, we do the appropriate analysis. You know somebody was questioning it as if it was a game to us in government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it is certainly not a game for me and it is certainly not a game for our government. When I hear people say, well, you know government may turn a blind eye to it or government should look in the eyes of the people who need this stuff, Mr. Speaker, I know exactly what they talk about. I know exactly what they speak of. To be totally honest with you, I have a family member now who is currently residing in hospital but hopefully will be out in the coming days and very well may need homecare; is in a condition where they do not have mobility. Of course, we are going to try to do it ourselves. Like most families you try to commit to it, but like most families today both people in the house are working, you have small children, so you rely on things like homecare when families cannot fill the gap.

I guess, in my case, even though we all live under the one roof, if you will, the family member has her own set up, her own living space, her own I will call it an in-law apartment. She would probably tell you that I am the one that lives in the apartment, no doubt, but the reality of it is that is what I refer to it as. To be totally honest with you, I do not know her income. She is a very capable individual, pays her own bills, drives her own car when she is capable of it and does her own banking all by phone. I will call her a young senior for lack of getting a tanning the next time I run into her, but I would consider her a young senior.

Mr. Speaker, there is going to come a time now when a financial assessment will probably have to be done and, like I said, I really personally do not know her exact income. I never did, but my guess is, my honest guess, that she would probably be over the current limit. By taking out all of the allowances, she would probably have to make a personal commitment to have homecare in her home. Mr. Speaker, obviously I live with the individual, she is a family member, and certainly I would want to see it covered and as much done for her as possible. Mr. Speaker, the reality of it is that we have to do it right.

I see the merits. I see where we are to. I see the importance of doing it right and it is essential that we do it right. It is not a time to be piecemealing stuff. If we go back through the history of governments I guess we would quickly see that when piecemeal approaches have been taken on to items it has never worked out in the end. That is why I think it is very, very important that we get this right and we get it right now.

When I hear someone talk about looking someone in the eyes who needs homecare and who will probably be just over the threshold, certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will probably be doing that as early as this afternoon when I get out of this House. This is a very personal issue for me and I certainly understand. I do not say this flippantly in any kind of a way, I honestly believe we have to get it right. It makes no sense doing this of a piecemeal fashion.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we listen to debates in this House and you would think that we have not done anything, that we have forgotten about people who need supports in this Province or we have forgotten about the elderly in particular. I realize that home support includes more than seniors, but certainly people with disabilities need it as well. It probably includes, I would think, more seniors than anybody else in the Province.

Government, in the reality, has invested heavily in the last number of years in home support. As a matter of fact, in April of 2004 the budget for home support in this Province was $80.7 million. In April of 2007, that increased to $97.4 million, a total of a $16.7 million increase in those three years. Today, in this fiscal year, expenditures are expected to exceed $100 million in the home care of this Province. Home support for seniors alone has increased from $19.9 million to $22.6 million in that same period of time.

Mr. Speaker, we have done significant things in home care. Have we got it all right? Well, certainly we will find out. We are in the process, like I said, of doing a long-term care study to make sure that we get this financial piece - the whole long-term care issue is being looked at, and of course, the financial assessment piece is certainly the cornerstone of that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2008 we committed a $6 million increase to support the hourly rate for home support services. That marks the fifth increase in the last three years. Basically, what has happened is that the rates for workers have gone from $7.29 an hour to today, $9.29 an hour. Mr. Speaker, we have put considerable money into this whole issue.

Mr. Speaker, the whole long-term care strategy, like I said earlier, including the financial development of new approaches to ensuring that the system addresses the health and social needs of our clients, will be to encourage choice, promote independence and mobility and deliver quality service. The whole long-term care strategy, that is its goals, that is its pointed goals. This government has committed $15 million dedicated to furthering that work.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that we are working on, something we certainly haven’t got on the back burner. As a matter of fact, as early as this morning I was speaking to a staff member who was working towards this issue. The whole long-term care strategy is alive and well in the Department of Health and Community Services. That is something I can certainly assure the people of this Province.

I just spoke about the money that we have committed, and I referenced the fact that there are very many – although not only seniors need homecare, a great many of the people need homecare. As most of the people in this Province are aware by now, we certainly have an aging population. The population in this Province, I think it is in the next ten years the median age of the population will be over fifty-five. If I am not mistaken that is the correct number. I know we certainly have an aging population, I think the fastest aging population in the country as a matter of fact.

When I hear that we are not looking into the future and we are not planning – certainly, we have to be prepared and be ready for an elderly population as time goes on. One of the things announced recently by the Minister of Health was a commitment of $200,000 to research projects, on issues relating to aging and seniors. Mr. Speaker, this is something that we know as a government and we see that it is essential to the future of our Province that we be prepared for our aging population, whether it be persons with disabilities, the housing requirements, supportive care, palliative and dementia care models, promoting the proper use of medications, mental health and addictions. Mr. Speaker, all these items fall under this commitment of $200,000 that we have given for research in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to be repetitive but I think it is important to the people of this Province that they realize that what has happened in the last four or five days – as I said, this is not a new policy. This is not something that government brought in last week or last month or last year. As the Leader of the Official Opposition said, this is a ten-year old formula. It is something, certainly, that we are working on as we speak.

In the last few days the Minister of Health has entertained a number of questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and, Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to them. I want to be pointed on these responses, because I want the general public out there to know exactly what was said. The questions were posed, and I am not going to read the questions, but basically it was: What are you doing? What are you going to do? How are you going to react? We are in a situation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote, for the general public, for the people listening and for members here in the House, exactly what the minister said in the last couple of days. This is from May 5, 2008, and I quote – and this was to a question from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, "I had indicated that our government is doing a complete evaluation of our long-term care and community support system. There are many aspects to that, Mr. Speaker, home support services, long-term care homes, personal care homes, alternate family living arrangements and an array of issues we are looking at. One of the things that is a piece of that is the whole financial assessment process. That mechanism determines how much a client contribution should be for an array of services, including…" - home support services.

Mr. Speaker, it also goes on to say, "…it is very difficult for us, as a government, or anybody who is being responsible, to cherry-pick one particular aspect of a major strategy and decide that you are going to respond to an issue today, and try to plug a hole."

Mr. Speaker, that says it all. It is going to be done in a comprehensive fashion and we are in the middle of that, to paraphrase. It is an extensive piece of work, and I quote, "an extensive piece of work". This is not something you can pick up Monday morning and solve Monday afternoon. It does not work like that; it is simply too large.

Being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I have gained knowledge of the different facets of the whole long-term care strategy, Mr. Speaker.

It was mentioned here earlier in Question Period, we heard the Minister of Health quoting somebody from this morning - I believe they are involved in the Independent Living Resource Centre. I have that quote here in front of me. Basically, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman said - and I do not need to go on and name him. I am sure he is well aware of the whole issue; he works with the Independent Living Resource Centre. That is a group of people who provide invaluable service, I might add, to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. He says: There are so many challenges and variants in home care that one across-the-board solution will not fix the problem.

Mr. Speaker, these are people who work on a day-to-day basis – they realize that a comprehensive consideration is needed when we talk about the variations in home care.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. That was what the minister responded to on May 5. I also have quotes here from the May 6, in which he reiterated again the very same answer. Just to paraphrase: One of the things that we are committed to, Mr. Speaker, is making some significant change and reform to our long-term care and community support sector. One of the pieces of that, as I said yesterday, as I said the week before, one of the pieces of that is a financial assessment tool that is currently being used. We want to do it right, Mr. Speaker. A piecemeal fashion is not going to work. We want to do what is right for today’s generation, and we want to do what is right for future generations: programs and services that are responsive to the changing needs of seniors and also that are sustainable in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, very clear again, this is something we have not forgotten about. This is not something that is on the back burner. This is something we are dealing with today. As we speak today, in the Department of Health and Community Services, I can assure you, there is somebody working on the long-term care strategy for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to say, okay, let’s fix it. This issue did not come up yesterday. This is an issue now – like I said, the formula is ten years old. Obviously, government realizes it is not adequate, it needs improvements, and certainly that is something we are working toward.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is running out here quickly but I certainly wanted to respond to, and try to explain - we talk about how comprehensive this study is. I just wanted to touch as quickly as I could on the number of different types of services where people require financial assessments, a needs assessment and a financial assessment done for this service. It does not happen only in the case of home care. There are many facets to this whole long-term care strategy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, today in this Province there are 10,000 individuals taking advantage of the long-term care strategy. I can assure you that many of these people – many of them – have very unique circumstances. There is no way that all 10,000 of them are the same, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, the whole system in this Province is comprised of a variety of options to provide individuals with supports and services they require to live independently.

I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but if I could have leave just for a couple of moments?

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): By leave?

MR. FRENCH: Just a small amount.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. FRENCH: I will be very quick.

Of course, there are therapeutic and professional services offered that do not need an assessment. There is the financial assessment service. There are home support services. There is the Special Assistance Program. There is the Adult Day Support Program.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there are these different residential services that all require financial assessment, and they are comprised of a number of sectors. There are the personal care homes and community care homes that require a financial assessment. There are nursing homes and residential dementia care facilities, Mr. Speaker, again, require financial assessments. There is alternate family care and co-operative apartments. Mr. Speaker, independent living - or alternate family care, sorry - is a situation whereby people live with a family. It could be up to two people. They live with a family, and the family cares for them as if it is their own children or their own relatives or their own relations, and they go on to live a normal life with the supports of the people who own the home.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. There are a number of different avenues of care. Then there is the co-operative apartment program. Again, I just mention the independent living arrangements. There are co-operative apartments. So, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many levels of care and different needs within the community. To take a piece out of that and piecemeal it for one certain particular area is not doing justice to the whole long-term care strategy. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I will be standing and voting against this.

Like I said, I can actually look into the eyes of family members who live under the same roof as me and will probably have to go down this road of a financial assessment in the very near future. Hopefully not, but some days it looks that way. Mr. Speaker, I will have to go down that road, and I deal with people in my district all the time who go down that road.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that we get it right, and our government is doing its best to get it right, but it is going to take a bit of time to do it. As I have said, as the minister has said many, many times, we are working on a long-term care strategy and hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will have it here sooner rather than later.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just going to take a few minutes. Hopefully I will not use up all my time, so other people can get an opportunity to speak on this motion, the private member’s motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright–L’Anse au Clair on home care.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Member for Conception Bay South, and I agree with him that it has to take time to do it properly, but this is not an issue that came up this week. This is an issue, I can assure you, that some hon. members in this House now on the government side, I remember them bringing it forward when the former Administration was in power. Here we are, five years, going on five years now, into a new Administration and we are still talking about getting it right.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, but still the issue that we read about recently in the paper of the Connors family, those people are still going through difficult times. The hon. Member for Conception Bay South said that many of them are older people who require home care. From the stats that I saw, I think it is somewhere around 64 per cent who require that care. It is not only the sake of the home care, of staying in the home. That is what people want to do. It also disrupts the family, it is a known fact, if they have to move out and go into other facilities and so on.

The main reason I wanted to stand today is to give, I guess, a personal story that happened in my district over the last couple or three years. I heard one of the hon. members opposite during Question Period when home care came up, he said all you are doing is fearmongering. Well, I can assure you the story that I have to tell is far from fearmongering. This gentleman, unfortunately, came to the point where he had to be admitted to hospital. While he was there they were unable, even if they wanted to, to get him into another care facility. The time came when the call went to the family - his wife, they just lived alone. They received a phone call saying that you have to come for him; he has to be discharged from the hospital. So, she took him home, and had to spend some money by other means which they could not afford to do, to join a piece onto the house so that he could live comfortable at home. It was very difficult, but she did – fortunately, I think it was somewhere around four hours per day of home care that she received. Here she was, he wanted to stay at home and she was doing everything for him. With just a meagre four hours per day they had a very difficult time, let me assure you.

Mr. Speaker, when he became of age to receive his old age security, I guess the bottom totally fell out of it, because they were in a financial position - even though they were getting a few more dollars, they still could not manage. The system - believe it or not, he had a hospital bed. He had a lift and various other pieces of equipment that he had to have to survive at home, and the system - she received a phone call saying, now that you do not qualify for any assistance, we are even going to come and take away some of the pieces of equipment that we loaned you when you were receiving assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I think that goes too far with it. There was a tremendous amount of effort put in, not only by myself but others to help stop that situation. Today, unfortunately, because she could not get the additional home care, that gentleman now is in one of the long-term care facilities in the Conception Bay North area, and believe it or not, for a cost of $4,200 per month.

When we look at the long-term care that we are talking about here today and the many people who need it - and that is only one particular story. I am sure there are hundreds of others. I believe that we have to look at this situation very seriously and as soon as possible. Here is this gentleman now, and she does not have a vehicle to get back and forth. So it totally disrupts the family. When people want to stay in their homes, I believe a means has to be provided where additional supports can be given them.

My hon. colleague for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair mentioned the benchmark that government used recently for Seniors’ Benefits, which goes on a scale, I think it is from $15,000 up to approximately $31,000. I believe that is something that should be brought in.

At this time, I would like to move an amendment to the Home Care Motion, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. It reads as follows:

Be it further resolved that this House urges government to immediately implement as an emergency measure a ten-hour a week free allocation of home care time where a need for such care has been identified by health care professionals, and where they fall below the income benchmark of the $31,930 established by government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a few moments to review the amendment put forward by the Member for Port de Grave.

I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have not had an opportunity either to see the amendment. Perhaps I would like to have some opportunity to make a comment whether, in my view, it is even in order. I am sure the Chair will consult with the Table Officers and so on, but I would like a moment or so at least to give it some thought myself so I could perhaps make an argument that might be useful to Your Honour in considering whether, in fact, the - it unusual that somebody gets up and amends their own motion. It does not happen every day and it is not something I anticipated, but I would certainly like to have an opportunity to look at it.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Government House Leader, the amendment was just decided upon very recently. We have checked with the Table Officers and we understand that it is in order as an amendment. It may be unusual that you would amend your own motion. I would point out for the record, that this is Private Members’ Day. It is a private member’s motion put forward, the principal motion, by the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair. This is being amended now by the Member for Port de Grave. I understand, it is a friendly amendment, they call it, and it is certainly in order to do that.

Anyway, I have no problem with the Government House Leader taking whatever time he feels necessary to review the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would still like to take a few moments to review the amendment as put forward by the Member for Port de Grave so that the Chair can determine whether the amendment is in order.

Having said that, I ask the Government House Leader, if you would like to take a few moments prior to our short recess to review this, to read the amendment and make your comments.

MR. RIDEOUT: I want to see it first, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible). So, you might want to take a recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we will take a few moments and allow the Government House Leader to review the amendment. Then, at that point, we will recess allowing the Government House Leader to make some remarks. We will recess to review the amendment and take into consideration the comments made on that.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for giving me an opportunity, a brief opportunity, to have a look at the amendment as proposed by the Member for Port de Grave, the Deputy House Leader or Whip, I am not sure what his title is, but certainly one of the members of the party whose leader proposed this amendment originally. Not that it makes any difference, but I point it out as a fact, Mr. Speaker, and I point it out for this reason: we, from time to time in this House, propose amendments one against the other. If the Opposition proposes a resolution, it has not been uncommon for this side of the House to propose an amendment that might make the resolution more friendly and more acceptable to a larger group in the House. I have done it in my time here. The Opposition has done it to private members’ resolutions from this side. We do it quite frequently.

I considered today, as Government House Leader, to advise my colleagues to look at a friendly amendment to this particular resolution, and I chose not to do it, which is my right. It was my right to do it, but my right also to choose not to do it, out of respect for the Opposition. The Opposition has an amendment before the House that they have a right to have debated without us attempting, every time they put a resolution down, to gut it. So, out of respect for parliamentary tradition and parliamentary practice, I choose to, whatever the political fallout is, to take that political fallout and deal with it; fair game.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is something different. Just look at the resolution as it is before the House right now without the amendment. It says: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges Government to immediately implement emergency measures…" That is what this resolution calls for; for the government to implement emergency measures to do certain things to lessen the burden on those requiring services and so on in the health care sector. That is, what we say in parliamentary terms, I suppose, the pith and substance of this resolution. That is what the Opposition brought in for us to debate and gave notice of on Monday.

Now if we tried to amend that today that would be one thing, but the party that proposed it has proposed an amendment to it, to do what, Mr. Speaker? Let me read just a piece of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment says this, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House urges government to immediately implement as an emergency measure a ten hour a week free allocation of homecare…", and then it goes on to say where such need exists and where people fall below a certain threshold. That is a total, I would submit to the Chair, a total departure from the pith and substance of the original resolution.

The original resolution called on the House to ask the government to implement emergency measure, generic, emergency measures, whatever they might be. It did not spell it out, just emergency measures. This changes the pith and substance and tone and tenor and content of this resolution altogether. I do not think it is an attempt to make it any more friendly. If that were the case that would be one argument. If this is anything, it is an attempt to make it more unfriendly, because, you know, this is asking the government to do a certain specific thing, to take a ten hour a week free allocation and make that the benchmark from which you start.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, in my view, with all due respect to everybody, is contrary to the original intent and pith and substance of the original resolution, and I would submit, Sir, it is out of order.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly do wish to have an opportunity to respond the Government House Leader’s comments. I would assert, without question and without hesitation, that this amendment is in order. To rule and suggest that this amendment is out of order defies logic and defies common sense.

First of all with regard to the right of the Member for Port de Grave to make it: The principal motion we are dealing with here was given on Monday past, May 5, by the Leader of the Liberal Party as a Private Member’s Motion. She put it forward as the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair. It is an absolute right of another private member, the Member for Port de Grave, to propose an amendment. That is first off.

Secondly, in terms of the reason why it is being amended today, anyone in this Province who has listened to the media in the last forty-eight hours, since the principal motion was given, has seen and heard this topic be the subject of extensive, in-depth media reporting, including by the Member for Port de Grave and the Leader of the Liberal Opposition.

That is why the amendment is being proposed, because, in fact, instead of being contrary to the principal motion it puts meat on the bones, it is more specific to the actual principal motion. I will point out why. Because the motion, once you get past the preambles, says, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges Government to immediately implement emergency measures to lessen the financial burden facing those requiring home care services in Newfoundland and Labrador." That is the principal motion: implement emergency measures to lessen the financial burden for those requiring home care in the Province.

This amendment simply goes a step further, and any common sense reading of it shows that, "Be it further resolved that this House urges government to immediately implement as an emergency measure a 10 hour a week free allocation of home care time where a need for such are has been identified by health care professionals, and where they fall below the income benchmark of $31,930 established by government."

Anybody who is going to read this amendment and suggest that it does not fall within the principal motion which called for emergency measures – what the amendment is doing, in fact, is giving a specific example of the type of an emergency measure that government ought to implement. How can anyone ever suggest it is not within the principal when you outline an example of what you can do? You specify what you can do as part of those generic emergency measures that you called for in the principal motion.

That is why it has happened today, that is why the Member for Port de Grave has a right to make it, that is why it is within the principal motion, that is why we did not just willy-nilly come in here as a surprise tactic to anybody, to take anybody by surprise and say we are going to have an amendment here for the sake of being humorous or being funny. The Member for Port de Grave wanted to be specific, more specific than the amendment that was proposed, than the principal motion. That is his right to do that and he has done that.

He did not just do it, by the way. We usually consult and we have consulted with the Table Officers.

MR. RIDEOUT: That doesn’t make it right.

MR. PARSONS: I do not know if it makes it right, I say to the Government House Leader, but I am just pointing it out. The practice that we have always followed here is that we run amendments - and I asked two questions. There were two questions asked of the Table Officers, because I did not know, for example, if the person who moved the motion could move the amendment: Should she, which she wanted to do? I was told, no, that is not proper, the principal mover should not move the amendment. Thank you very much. Is the amendment in order? Yes. That is why I followed the advice.

Now, maybe there is going to be a change by the Chair. Maybe the Chair is going to say, now, upon reflection or further consideration, we are going to rule it out of order. I just want it on the record as to how it got here and why it got here. Now, if the motion is in order and we proceed and the government members decide they want to, as the Government House Leader says sometimes, gut things around here. If the government members want to vote against the amendment, that is fine. That is another issue. But there is absolutely nothing here which restricts the right to make it.

I would refer the Chair as well to Beauchesne on page 175 when it talks about amendments. It says in Item 567, "the object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question." This is obviously not proposing an alternative. The first part of it is to modify the question, to increase its acceptability. It is specific.

Secondly, Item 568 says, "It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed." Anyone who is going to read this proposed amendment that gives a specific solution to an emergency measure that is outlined in the principal motion and suggest that it is not relevant - it obviously meets the relevancy requirement.

Item 569, sub 1: "A motion may be amended by: (a) leaving out certain words; (b) leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; or (c) inserting or adding other words." We have obviously complied with the form of an amendment. We have obviously complied with the relevancy of an amendment. We are permitted, in an amendment, to modify the question, which we have done. It even goes so far - not that this is relevant necessarily to here - but, "When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order." There is nothing inadmissible about this.

I do not know if the shock element was an issue here. It is obvious that this particular amendment is in order. It is obvious that in form it is relevant. We followed the proper advice. I do not know what else that you can do in this House to comply with the rules.

I checked our Standing Orders, and there is nothing in our Standing Orders which would say that this amendment is not in order. The only mention about amendments is on page 64, Standing Order 110, and that talks about amendments in the case of bills, not in the case of amending motions. There is absolutely nothing in our Standing Orders to prohibit and say this is out of order. There is nothing in our recognized authorities such as Beauchesne saying that this amendment is out of order. In fact, everything in Beauchesne and our orders, anything I have consulted with, suggests that it is in order. Quite frankly, I think we did get good advice from the Table Officers and that is why I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is indeed in order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of very brief points. The Opposition has every right to make their argument and I listened very, very carefully to what the Opposition House Leader had to say. I just want to make two quick points.

Your Honour consults with the Table Officers and will decide whether or not an amendment is in order. It is not up to the Table Officers to tell any of us that an amendment is in order. It is up to them to give us advice that we think it might be and we will be giving whatever advice we are going to give to the Chair, but that is the Chair’s decision at the end of the day. You know, we don’t get up and argue that it is in order because the Table Officers suggested to us that it might be in order. That is point number one. Obviously we will live with and accept whatever the Chair’s ruling is.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is also some consideration as to whether an amendment that binds the government to spending money is in order and Your Honour might want to consider that in your consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will ask for a recess to consider the arguments put forward by both House Leaders, to consider the amendment and to consult with the Speaker and the Table Clerks. The House is now in Recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The Chair has considered the arguments put forward by both Government House Leaders. I will say, at the outset, that the Table Clerks will provide advice on the form of an amendment. They do not make a decision as to whether an amendment is in order. I would urge all members of the House not to drag the Table Clerks into debate on such issues. They will simply advise us as to whether the form of an amendment is in order and it is really up to the Chair or the Speaker to determine whether, in fact, the amendment is in order.

It is Private Members’ Day and there is nothing in Beauchesne or the Standing Orders to prevent an amendment being brought forward to a private member’s resolution. Any member, other than the presenting private member to a resolution, is permitted to provide or to present an amendment to that resolution.

This amendment does elaborate on the main motion, but it does not significantly alter the main motion of the private member’s resolution. It simply urges government to consider but does not bind government to spend money.

The Chair, in consultation with the Speaker and the Table Clerks, find that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to be able to get up today and have a few comments with respect to the motion and perhaps more specifically in support of and a discussion around some of the initiatives and directions that our government is taking in support of seniors.

Certainly, I would like to say at the outset, one of the challenges that all governments face is developing comprehensive, long-term strategic directions and plans that guide us into the future and take us in a direction that is well thought out and well planned. It certainly seems today, by a motion on the fly here, that it is probably why the party opposite is no longer in power, to be making motions and then amending motions as they go in the House of Assembly. We do not have the luxury to do that, unfortunately. We are the government and we are expected to provide far greater leadership of the Province’s funding and to look in more detail and with more consideration at what we are doing as a matter of public policy.

What I would like to do is touch on a number of areas with respect to seniors and what our government has done in the past and continues to do in support of seniors. This issue certainly is close to me, as it is, I am sure, to all of my colleagues here. I have two grandparents who died in the last - not too distant past, and I have two grandmothers who are currently in institutional homes. I recognize firsthand, the value of the kinds of things that we have to do to support our seniors and to continue to support them into the future.

I would like to touch on a couple of things from budgets present and past over the last couple of years. The first thing I want to talk a little bit about is in the area of programs and supports that government has committed to and invested in.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the home support services level and the home support care program, that in Budget 2008 brings a commitment from government of $10.8 million for initiatives like the home support service levels, the personal care and community home care wage rate; $1.8 million for client subsidies; $1 million to exempt RRSPs from the financial assessment process. All of those initiatives have been brought in by this government, in this Budget, as a way to add support to our seniors and to give greater financial assistance where it is required.

A second item, Mr. Speaker, that is extremely important, and I have received extremely positive feedback on, is the Prescription Drug Program in our Province. As colleagues here in the House are aware, there are many components to that. To summarize, the government has extended the program now to, first of all, provide for the inclusion of many more types of drugs under the program. As all of us are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are many people out there who for a long time complained and raised to our attention the fact that drugs they needed to keep their health and to, in many cases, allow them to survive and have a decent living style, many drugs were not included in that plan. As part of our ongoing policy for the Prescription Drug Program, we have now expanded that to include many more types of drugs. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, we have also made the prices for drugs now more affordable, as part of a second phase for that.

The third piece, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention on that is that the new program now includes more low-income individuals and low-income seniors as part of the drug program. In other words, more people, more seniors in this Province are able to avail of a greater variety of drugs and get them at a more reasonable cost than they have been under past Administrations, and I think that is a tremendous investment into the seniors in this Province.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a moment about the Seniors’ Benefit program. As all of us are aware, in the 2007 Budget the qualifying threshold was increased by some $10,000 to include 7,000 eligible couples under the Seniors’ Benefit program. To add to that, the 2008 Budget brought the single Seniors’ Benefit up on par with the married couples, the couples benefit. So, those are two significant initiatives that will put money back into the hands of our seniors over the last two budget years that this government has pursued.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have invested in personal income splitting, where couples can reduce their taxes and put more money in their hands by splitting their incomes. In cases where one partner has an income greater than the other or in some cases there is only one income per family, they can now split the income, thereby reducing the taxes that they have to pay, putting more money back into the hands of the seniors and more disposable income that they can use to invest in improving their quality of life.

As well, Mr. Speaker, along the same line of programs, the Home Heating Rebate is a very popular program, as I am sure all colleagues are aware and all those who are watching today are aware. To remind colleagues in the House and those who are listening, the fuel rebate is $300, electricity $200, and the coast of Labrador rebate of $400. Mr. Speaker, the global cost of that, the global investment of that for this government is $17 million; $17 million invested into the seniors and others in this Province, money back into their hands to use to improve their quality of life.

AN HON. MEMBER: People who need it the most.

MR. KING: People who need it the most. That is right, Mr. Speaker.

Also, the last two I will touch on under the programs and services, Mr. Speaker, is - of course, the reduction in the cost to register your vehicles now puts, straight across the board for a vehicle registration, $40 back into the hands of residents of the Province. Of course, over the last two years $340 million invested in income tax cuts in this Province that affects all residents, which includes the seniors of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: All of those items, Mr. Speaker, put money back into the hands of our seniors in this Province because this government recognizes the challenges that seniors face and we recognize the need to provide as much support as we possibly can to the seniors in this Province.

I would like to touch as well, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, on some of the services that we have supported and invested in. The minister talked about this on a number of occasions here in this House, but the establishment of a Provincial Advisory Council on aging and seniors. That initiative is intended to bring together a group of people - twelve individuals, I believe, sit on this board, this provincial board. They come from all walks of life. They include seniors from the Province. They include experts on matters related to seniors and aging. This group, Mr. Speaker, provides valuable public discussion in the first instance and, secondly, they provide valuable advice and guidance to the minister, and through the minister to this government, on public policy development as it relates to seniors and aging in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous group of individuals who are totally committed to the betterment of seniors in this Province and totally committed to working with government on the development of sound and strategic and logic public policy that will strengthen the lives of seniors in the future in this Province.

As well, Mr. Speaker, to go hand in hand with that, this government, through the Ministry of Health and Community Services, has established the Division of Aging and Seniors. Again, that division, the intent is to provide strategic advice and direction and policy development advice to this government to improve the lot and life of seniors in our Province.

As well, Mr. Speaker, something that has not been mentioned too much here but I believe is significant is that this government amended the Human Rights Code and, for the first time, removed the mandatory retirement age in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Because there are many seniors in this Province not only who are able to work beyond what was previously a mandatory retirement age, not only are they able to work but they want to work and they have something to contribute. They have something to contribute to this Province through the workforce, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that I certainly want to support that initiative.

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the services and the quality of life of our seniors in this Province, I reflect a little on my own district. I am not talking about the mandatory retirement but I am talking about the valuable role that our seniors play in our communities, in volunteering to support our churches, to support our schools, to support our youth groups.

Mr. Speaker, we did volunteer sessions in this Province about three to four weeks ago with my colleague the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, and it is astonishing the number of seniors and retired individuals who still contribute to the quality of life in this Province, not only for themselves and for their peers, Mr. Speaker, but for those who are coming behind them.

Mr. Speaker, one of the functions and one of the priorities of the minister is to provide our support for these volunteers who are doing so well out there and giving so much back to this Province and to the quality of life, to enhance the quality of life of our Province.

The last piece, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, that I want to touch on a little bit, is facilities as it relates to health care and our support again for seniors in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this government, through the last Budget in particular, has made significant investments in facilities in this Province. I think the figure of somewhere in the area of $79 million dollars has been targeted and earmarked for health care facilities.

Mr. Speaker, we have announced a number of facilities in our Budget. I remember Clarenville was mentioned, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, design and site work for Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on my own district for a moment because I think this is significant. It was under this government that we are seeing the redevelopment of the Blue Crest Nursing Home in Grand Bank. That home has been in need of repairs and redevelopment for God knows how many years, under previous governments, but it is this government who saw fit to invest because we recognize the need for the redevelopment of the Blue Crest Nursing Home in Grand Bank to support the residents there, to provide them with a better quality of life and a better comfort of living. As well, Mr. Speaker, we have invested in a brand new health care centre in the Town of Grand Bank. I believe this year’s Budget allocated $4.1 million to complete those two projects.

In addition, in my district, as part of that project, this government has re-opened and committed to keeping open ten new beds at the U.S. Memorial Health Care facility in St. Lawrence. Of course, the digital mammography unit, while not specific to seniors, is yet another investment by this government in the Burin Peninsula and in services that support my district, the District of Grand Bank.

Those are tremendous investments that offer our support and show our commitment to ensuring that we are focused on improving the quality of life of all of our residents, regardless of their age. We do not forget them as they grow older. That is a phenomenal investment and I am very proud, as a member, to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I talked a little bit about programs and a little bit about the services and facilities that our government has committed to. I am mindful of my time, so I will try to bring some conclusion to my comments.

I also want to make a comment around my own experiences, the professionals who are in this system and who are just as committed to ensuring that our seniors have a quality of life and are receiving services that are second to none. I am talking about the doctors and the nurses and the LPNs and all of the other professionals who work in the health care system and give so much on a daily basis to provide and ensure that we are providing for a good quality of life and a good lifestyle for all residents of this Province and in particular, of course, our seniors. I certainly want to point that out and say thank you to them.

Mr. Speaker, I think, as previous speakers have said, our government has shown commitment to our seniors, we are committed to the long term, to developing a comprehensive strategy, a detailed strategy that provides some vision and some direction to the Province. We are not in the habit here on this side of the House, as a governing party, of bringing in a motion and ten minutes later amending it by somebody else in the backbenches. We are in the habit of bringing forward sound public policy that will make a difference to the residents of this Province, a difference to the lives of the seniors in this Province. It is that kind of approach that got this party in power, and it is the lack of that kind of approach that put the other party on the other side of the House, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

It is not a piecemeal approach that we bring to this issue. It is an approach that the minister has spoken to many times, that will include lots of public consultation, and when we lay a policy out that takes us significantly away from where we are today, it will be well-thought-out and it will be well focused into the future.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, with respect to responding to emergencies, the minister has been very clear in this House that we are responding to emergencies on a daily basis, in every single health care facility in this Province. This government is responding as the need arises.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, in respect of my time, I can only say that the approach that we are taking to the seniors in this Province is a balanced one, it is a focused one, it is one that will provide a vision and a direction for the long term in this Province, Mr. Speaker. It is not one that will be changed on the fly, it is not one that will be developed on the seat of our pants, here in the House of Assembly, and it is one that will include input from the seniors of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

So I am certainly very, very, very happy to be here to speak in support of what we have done as a government and will continue to do for the seniors of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We only have fifteen minutes left. I have agreed, and I have discussed it with the Government House Leader, that I will just be speaking for four or five minutes, and then the remaining time that I would have would be used by the Leader of the NDP.

I will just make a couple of comments. I say to the Member of Grand Bank, we will see where he stands. We are dealing today with a specific motion, and notwithstanding his well-thought-out creative plans that his government likes to go through, we will see where he stands today on this issue.

There is little doubt that there is an emergency in this Province when it comes to home care, no doubt, whatsoever. Certainly, all forty-eight members in this House ought to be aware of it, because I am sure, like everyone else, I have gotten enough calls concerning home care issues, and it has reached emergency proportions. That is why this resolution was brought in today, because it is an emergency.

I say to the Member for Grand Bank, when you usually have emergency situations you try to come up with some emergency remedy, and that is all this is about. Yes, you may need a well-thought-out period to come up with a good comprehensive plan on a go-forward basis, but that does not take away from your responsibility - in fact, your obligation - to deal with emergency situations.

For example, the Minister of Health said here in the House today, he made a comment that one caller to the Open Line show said we should not use a band-aid approach to fix it. I think everybody would agree with that. What he failed to mention today, the Minister of Health, was the dozens of other calls to the Open Line shows which say the system is not working. Don’t stand up here and talk about one caller who said you don’t use a band-aid. Talk about the dozens of callers who called in and told their horror stories. That is what the minister needs to be concerned about and reflecting upon.

The Minister of Health today talked about the Independent Living Group. I believe he said that was the group who came on the open line show and said that they supported the government approach to this thing. I can advise the House and the minister that we have checked with the Seniors Resource Centre, and that is the group in this Province who speak for seniors, the Seniors Resource Centre, not the Independent Living Group. The Seniors Resource Centre supports this motion, supports this amendment that is here before the House today.

If government is not prepared to acknowledge and respect the wishes of the very people who represent the Seniors in this Province, that has nothing to do with long-term planning, that has got to do with having an appropriate reaction to a problem that is immediate. We did not look at the Badger flood when we had an emergency and said, well, we have to take all kinds of time to figure it out. You had to react. This is the same situation here. There is no problem in taking until the fall, if the Minister wants to, to decide what he is going to do on a go-forward basis, but that does not address and deal with the emergency issues that exist.

The Minister himself has acknowledged, for example, that the financial assessment tool is defective, it is flawed. That is understood. Now, we have had the financial tool that they use for the long-term care facilities. That was done last year, folks. This is not rocket science. The form that we are talking about, this financial assessment tool, that was done by this government last year. It does not take another six or eight months, number one, I would suggest, to revise and revisit the financial tool that we use for home care, as opposed to long-term care. You have been there. You have people who have already been engaged and involved in doing that kind of reassessment.

Aside from that, there is nothing that says, nothing that prohibits you from dealing with things that are of an emergency basis. That is where I am coming from in supporting both the amendment and this resolution. We have an emergency, we have crisis situations. Today, by the way, this is only one debate. This debate is going to continue in this Province for a long time yet. This is going to continue because even government, if government were to vote for this amendment today and vote for the principal motion, it is not going to resolve the issue. We all agree, and we agree that government might need some time to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with home care.

A lot of these examples will get talked about as the weeks go on here in the House. We will get into some very, very detailed specifics about how the home care situation is an emergency right now and why the current plan is not working. Contrary to what some people might think, we are going to make suggestions to government, the same as we made a suggestion here today in the amendment about how to deal with it. You can put your backs up against it and say, no, no, because it came from the Opposition it is not worthy, or you might as well knuckle down, deal with it and try to do something about it.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, again I will give up the remaining time that I have to speak to the Leader of the NDP.

Thank you.

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

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

I sincerely thank the Opposition House Leader and Government House Leader for cooperating so that I could also get time to speak this afternoon.

This is an extremely important motion and amendment that we are speaking to and I am very much for both the motion and the amendment. I am for them because we are talking about a situation where people are in desperate need. Some people may think, well an emergency means the moment at which you have to go to hospital because it is a life and death thing and you have to get dealt with right away. Maybe they are thinking, when they say health authorities are dealing with emergencies all of the time and we know what emergencies are, maybe they are using a definition that is not working for them in this situation.

However, life and death is involved. People who came to me about home care, a couple who contacted me in my office, constituents, not Mr. Connors and his wife - I met with Mr. Connors as well months ago – but another couple who came to me and, as I said, who were constituents of mine, came to me because the husband was disabled. The husband required regular attention at the hospital that he had to be physically brought there for. That was a life and death situation, because it was dialysis and if he did not go for the dialysis his death would be more eminent. Because of his disability he literally had to be carried out of the house into a vehicle in order to go get dialysis. This man was in a very bad situation, yet the income of the couple meant that they could not get home care without putting so much money in, in the co-pay, that it just rendered it impossible for them.

From the time that they first came to me until this man died, I would say it was just a matter of two to three months. He did die and his wife continued living with him at home, trying to take care of him by herself, trying to manage all of the care that was required of somebody who was physically disabled while also trying, with help from family and friends, to regularly get him to the hospital as well to have his dialysis treatments.

That man is dead. How do we determine how close to death somebody has to be in order to get home care? How do we determine how sick somebody has to be in order to get home care? Right now we do have a regulation that says if somebody is near the end of their life homecare is free and everything that goes with it, all the professional care et cetera. That happened in my own case with my mother. It was obvious that she was becoming close to death. All of a sudden she could get home care freely, and up to that time she paid for everything. She could get it freely and every service was there.

The reason is because we are recognizing that home care in actual fact is attached to health, that the need for home support and home assistance is because somebody is not in good health. What we are dealing with is a health situation. What I would like to put to my colleagues and the government is: Why are you so adamant about not understanding the nature of the need for home care? If this is caused by a health need then we are talking about something that is part of our health care system. The reason we have health care and community services together is because they are connected and community services are needed very often when somebody’s health is in jeopardy. People who are requiring home care and home support have health that is in jeopardy, so they need health care.

We are saying and you say it as a government, I say it, we say it as a party and, in general, society says it, one of the best things to do is if we can keep people in their own homes while they are being cared for, that is the best way to go. That is the best way to go.

Now, if somebody went to emergency and was sick, in our public health care system, thank goodness, nobody says do you have insurance, can you pay for some of your care. No, because we have a universal, accessible health care system. Somebody goes to emergency and they get the care that they need. Well it is exactly the same thing. If somebody is in their home and they require home support they should get the care that they need. It should not be based on money. It should not be based on how much they can pay to get it. If we can make them broke by paying half of their income we make them broke. This is healthcare that we are talking about, my friends. You know, this is health care. We have a health care system that is a public system.

To say that we think there is an emergency - I think it is not because it only happened last night or it happened this morning but because it is a crisis moment. If we have people in this Province who are not able to get home care because of the money situation, because they just do not fit in this bracket, then there is something wrong, because we are denying them a right. This is something that we cannot do in our society; we cannot deny people a right. Their right is to be taken care of, whether they are at home, or whether they are in a hospital, or whether they are in a long-term care facility, or whether they are in a personal home facility. They have a right to be taken care of.

While my colleagues in the Official Opposition have come up with a motion and a resolution that I agree with in the short term - and I do agree with it in the short term. I think they have proposed an amendment that any reasoned person could see this could work in the short term. What I challenge my colleagues in the government to think about, and what I challenge the Minister of Health and Community Services to think about, is we do not need a financial assessment tool at all. We should be doing away with the financial assessment tool, like other provinces in Canada are doing and have done. There should not be a financial assessment tool. The assessment tool should be what people who are at home now go through.

For example, somebody is at home, they are not well, and they are becoming more and more unable to take care of themselves. The social worker comes in, the social worker meets with them, and the social worker decides if the person is Level I, Level II or Level III. If they are Level IV, the recommendation would be that they would go into a long-term home. Level I, II or III, they can be at home. They can be there, they can have care. The social worker will decide how many hours a day, how many hours a week a person might have, and if that person cannot afford to pay for their home care at all, it gets taken care of. They get their assessment, and then it gets paid for.

Now, what we are saying is, that is not adequate. What the government is saying, or what this tool is saying that we have had for some years, that that is not adequate. We also have to look at their finances, but we do not do that with anything else in the health care system. So why are we doing it with home care?

I see some of my colleagues looking at me with thoughtful expressions. Maybe you have not thought about this. This is a health care issue. Our health care is a public health care system and we should be offering this part of our health care system to everybody who needs it, when they need it, and for as long as they need it.

I am really calling upon my colleagues. You say you care, and I do believe you care, so I am calling upon your compassion. I am calling upon your understanding that we have people who really are hurting. We have people who are really under stress. Therefore, I am calling upon you to use the compassion that is in you to realize the necessity for voting for this motion and for the amendment. The amendment really gives you a tool to use until a final decision is made. As I said, I cannot imagine anything else to be said but to say that we get rid of financial assessment tools. I urge the minister to realize they do not have to go through all kinds of ins and outs and twists and permutations to figure out what to do, just get rid of financial assessment tools. Do what is happening in the rest of the country.

I had an e-mail today from a women and she said: I am so happy that you are taking such a strong stand on the home care issues. The situation is bad and getting worse by the minute. Lack of home care workers, nursing home spaces and the fact that the home care workers will now go elsewhere to work the minimum wage, and their wage not much difference, are all causing stress and hardship for both the person needing care and the caregivers, both paid and unpaid. The assessment tool is flawed. Allowing under $300 per month for a family member to take care of a senior in their home is off the wall. The extra fuel to keep them warm eats that up, not to mention food, et cetera. Thanks, keep up the good hard work.

That is somebody not from my constituency. That is somebody from outside of the city from another part of the Province. That is just an example of the kinds of e-mails that I am getting and I would think some of you are getting as well.

Please use the opportunity to make the right decision here this afternoon. Let’s recognize that we have a real need in this Province. I am not asking you to make a final decision. As the amendment says, I really am urging my colleagues in government to realize that we have to make a short-term decision and then make the long-term decision. Once again, I say that the long-term decision, I believe, has to be getting rid of the assessment tool, period.

I do not have time to go on. I think I just probably have about half a minute. Once upon a time in this Province, back in the early 1990s, we had some programs going on where home care workers were government employees where it was totally public. Out in Gander, in particular, we had a wonderful contract between Gander and District Continuing Care Program and the government. It was a model contract, so as we deal with the home care issue I also urge my colleagues in the government to look at what it is that home care workers require as well; because the reality is, even if people can get home care, that it would be paid for, they are also having a very hard time having that home care met because of –

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that it is now 4:45 p.m. and the person moving the resolution, which in this case is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is entitled to fifteen minutes to conclude the resolution. So, I ask the member if she would conclude her thoughts or ask leave to continue.

MS MICHAEL: I will conclude very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I will not go on with the point I was going to start, because I do not have the time and I would like the Leader of the Opposition who started this discussion to have her fifteen minutes.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank everyone in the House of Assembly today who has contributed to this debate on the private member’s motion that has been put forward.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendment that we did implement today, and talk about the reason why we proposed this particular amendment.

The amendment read: Be it further resolved that the House urge government to immediately implement as an emergency measure a ten hour a week free allocation of home care where a need for such care has been identified by health care professionals and where they fall below the income benchmark of $31,930 established by government.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Bank caused quite a stir over the fact that we would propose an amendment to a motion. Well, maybe he has not been here long enough to understand that on any Private Members’ Day, any private member in this House of Assembly can pose an amendment to a motion and can debate that motion and have an opportunity to speak to it. That is certainly not restricted to the Opposition.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, originally when we introduced this motion, we had hoped to be able to attach a measure to it in terms of where we were going with it. At the time we had not finished our complete assessment and review of the two options we were considering. One of the options was around the Low Income Drug Program. The other option was around emergency care on a ten hour basis meeting the government benchmark.

Because we had not finished our full evaluation and review of those two options, we were not prepared to attach it to the motion on Monday. That was the reason we took the extra day or two to sort through our own research to ensure that this was a doable option, that it was an affordable option for government, and that it would at least reach those 33 per cent of the population out there today that fall into a category where they are unable to receive the emergency personal care that they require. Our goal was to try and develop something where we could at least reach a large sector of the people who needed the service.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to clarify that because the Member for Grand Bank made a huge display and statement about this, this afternoon. Maybe he will make another huge display when he is in his district the next time holding a public meeting - that is, if the member holds public meetings - and explain to the people of his district why he thinks that putting $15 million into a caribou study is perfectly acceptable, but not enhancing the home care program for the people in his district – it is all right to not do that.

Maybe the Member for Grand Bank will provide that explanation as he so bravely stood in the House today and made his comments, Mr. Speaker. I will look forward to seeing that in the local media up there, how he explains to the people of Grand Bank that I will not be supporting home care supplements to people who need it right now and are falling through the gaps, but I will support to look at what is happening with the caribou out there and see what is happening with them.

Mr. Speaker, we raised questions around this issue today in the House of Assembly and we introduced this motion simply because it is a need that has been identified out of the need of people out there who are falling through the cracks. We already know that 33 per cent of those people require direct personal care services. These are services that they are unable to provide for themselves simply because of the disabilities or because of illnesses that they face. We are not talking about things like housekeeping and those things. That is a whole different section of the population again where we get into another 60 per cent of the people who are falling through the gaps. This is very well focused on emergency situations, and those emergencies that would be identified right now by people who work in the system.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague already said today in the House of Assembly, when I asked the Minister of Health with regard to emergency measures that he might look at on an interim basis, he certainly did not feel that it was necessary. He felt a longer-term strategy would be the solution.

No doubt, there need to be longer-term solutions implemented. In fact, Mr. Speaker, by his own comments, he has known this for nearly two years. In fact, what he has said in the statement that he made, he said one of the things that we have heard repeatedly in the last couple of years, and more particularly last year when we did our consultations on aging, is that the financial tool doesn’t work.

He has known this for the last couple of years, but yet it is only now that he is prepared to say we will take a look at it and we will correct it for the long term.

That is fine, and we will wait for a longer-term solution, but there are many people out there who cannot wait, and that is the reason they need emergency care right now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when they did the consultations, back over a year ago, and they changed the framework and the financial tools that were used to assess people going into long-term care, it could have very easily been done then, but it was left off the agenda of government because it was not something they were ready to elevate to the top of the list and deal with.

Well, now I think we are in a situation in the Province where they are being forced to deal with it. In the meantime, I think they need to take seriously what measures can be implemented. What we are proposing today is one of those options - one of those options that could easily be done in very short order.

The minister today talked about someone from the Independent Living Centre, on the radio, giving him the accolades for looking at a longer-term solution. I do not think anyone in the Province is not supportive of looking at a longer-term solution, but there are many people who want a short-term solution right now to fix their immediate need, and to be able to alleviate some of the stress that they are under in providing home care services to family members.

What the minister did not say is all of those people who have been voicing those concerns to his office – and I know they have, because I have gotten the same e-mails that he has gotten, on many occasions, I am sure, and I know of many cases where letters were sent to the Department of Health, where phone calls have been made to the Department of Health. So he has first-hand knowledge of these situations, and what people are dealing with; and I am sure there are many members in this House of Assembly today who represent constituents who, when you were going around knocking on the door, asking for their vote, would have said to you: I am having problems with home care services, and these are issues I am confronted with.

Well, today is an opportunity for each of you to stand and try and provide a little bit more benefit for those people - those same people who opened the doors, who took your pamphlets at election time, who told you their stories, their horror stories, of home care in this Province, and why they are not getting services, and how they would have to give up 50 per cent of their income in order to get care for their mom or their dad or their spouse. Well, now is your opportunity to be able to stand and say: We recognize the problem, and we are prepared to do something about it.

We will have to see what happens, Mr. Speaker, but what the minister failed to say were the many horror stories that do come to his attention. Only the one accolade of the one body out there that decided to say: We will wait. We will wait until government decides they are going to do this.

They have known for two years. Now they are getting prepared to act. We do not know how long it will be before we see a longer-term solution.

Mr. Speaker, the Seniors Resource Centre who, in my opinion, are the people who speak for seniors in this Province as a collective body, they have already told us that the measures that we are proposing today would go a long ways in dealing with many of the clients that they have on their list who are looking for home care services. They have already acknowledged that. They want a long-term solution, too, and they will not stand in the way of one, but in the meantime they see those measures as being very practical and being able to be enforced in very short order to alleviate a lot of the pressure that is being placed upon these seniors today.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people out there who may not understand how the assessments for home care is done. I know I am dealing with an issue right now of a senior in my own district who just had to put his wife into a long-term care facility because they did not have home care services. It is costing $4,200 a month to be able to put someone into a long-term care facility in this Province. When you do not have home care services, and no one in the home to take care of these elderly people or these people who need the service, then they have only one other option; that is to place them into government-funded and subsidized institutions.

Today, if I or anyone else puts a resident into a seniors’ home in this Province, in long-term care, it costs $4,200 a month. That is nothing near what we are asking for in terms of providing some services at home so that it takes some pressure off the family and provides some service to these people.

Mr. Speaker, this individual, not only has he had to put his wife into a long-term care facility, but right now he is dealing with his own health issues, some very serious health issues. As a result of it, he has just has his driver’s licence suspended. Do you know something? He has a vehicle, he has insurance, and he has a family member who lives next to him who can drive him back and forth to the hospital to his appointments and to see his wife in the long-term care facility, but all of a sudden, in his home care assessment, he cannot claim any more his car payment or his insurance payment, because his licence has been suspended. So, not only will he not receive an adequate level of home care, but he is being disabled in terms of transportation because there is no one else to drive him to his appointments. There is no one else to take him to see his wife, who he has had to institutionalize because he had no home care.

Is that fair? I do not think this is the kind of a program that allows for a quality of life for those people who have to depend upon it. There are things like this that need to be changed in the program. I think they should be allowed to be able to have a vehicle and to carry insurance so they can have someone take them to their appointments. Many of these people need wheelchair-accessible vehicles; they need to have vehicles with lifts. Not every neighbour has a vehicle with a lift, that they can take you to a hospital when you need to go. There are circumstances, Mr. Speaker, where these things need to have some flexibility and where they need to give people a little bit more freedom, and it is not existing right now.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, when they are being assessed in terms of what they are eligible for, the rates are minimal. They are minimal. Right now, they look at something like $583 a month, which is supposed to provide for food, personal items, and all of those expenses of a household, to run a household, and anything over and above that - you may get a little bit extra if you are a diabetic. You may get a little bit extra, I guess, if you are on oxygen, because that is not paid for, so you have to buy your own oxygen and rent your own equipment. There are exceptions where you are allowed to keep a little bit more of that money, but only if you are paying it out to someone else, not to go into your pocket to place some more value on the quality of life that you will have. It has to go out to someone. Outside of that, the rest of your income is going to provide for this service in your home, and I think it is unacceptable.

We talk about eradicating poverty in this Province, how we are supposed to be leading the country, and we are designing programs that are leaving people in poverty? We are designing programs where we are taking half of the income of a family who earns $25,000 a year in this Province and we are requiring half of their income for a service, a necessary health home care service, and we are supposed to be leading the country?

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are one of the few provinces in this country that does not have a decent home care program, if you really want to know. In fact, in most provinces co-payments for personal care and homemaking services, I guess, are available to people probably right across the country. In some provinces there is no co-payment. If you look at Ontario and Manitoba, there is no co-payment. In Alberta, there is a $5 an hour charge for home support that falls outside of personal care. So, if it means you need to get your shopping done, your housecleaning done, you contribute so much to that, but to your personal care there is no coverage at all. It is free.

So, don’t talk about leading the country when it comes to eradicating poverty when you are designing programs that are leaving people in a worse state of poverty than they were in when they started. To me, that does not meet the means to meet the ends, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, the motion that we put forward today is only a short-term measure to be able to deal with a problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member if she would conclude her remarks, it being five o’clock on Private Members’ Day.

MS JONES: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was watching the other clock and I did not notice. I thought I had fifty seconds left.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I can only ask that members support this motion. I know they are intimately aware of the problems that exist and hopefully today we will make a new start and try and change that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment, as put forward by the hon. Member for District of Port de Grave, carry?

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Is the House ready for the question?

Is the House ready for the count?

All those in favour of the amendment, as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave, please stand.

THE CLERK (MacKenzie): Ms Jones, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Ms Michael.

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

THE CLERK: Mr. Rideout, Ms Burke, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Oram, Mr. Denine, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Kent, Mr. Baker, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Dr. King, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Peach, Mr. Verge, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Harding, Mr. French, Mr. Young, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Kelly

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

THE CLERK: Mr. Speaker, the ayes, four; the nays, thirty.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, indicate by saying ‘Aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is defeated.

On motion, resolution defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: It being now five o’clock on Wednesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Ms Michael.

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

CLERK: Mr. Rideout, Ms Burke, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Oram, Mr. Denine, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Kent, Mr.Baker, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms. Sheila Osborne, Dr. King, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Peach, Mr. Verge, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Harding, Mr. French, Mr. Young, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes, four; the nays, thirty.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is defeated.

On motion, resolution defeated.