|
Oral
Questions
May 6, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the
Minister of Education.
Mr. Speaker, back in
March, the Minister of Education announced a new teacher
allocation model and it gave the impression that the new
model would be needs-based or program-based, and not on
numbers, and that schools around the Province would not
lose teaching units.
I ask the minister today:
While allocations are now being
put out to the various schools in the Province we are
learning that there is indeed a reduction in units. I
ask her why this is the case.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, one of the most important areas that I had to
address as Minister of Education certainly was the
teacher allocation and how we allocated teachers to our
schools. We were handed a formula that was based on
numbers only. As students came out of the system,
teachers would be reduced. We felt that was not working
for Newfoundland and Labrador. So, Mr. Speaker, we had
commissioners go out, there was a broad consultation
across Newfoundland and Labrador, there was a report
that was submitted to government and we certainly did
analysis on that report to ensure that when we look at
the teacher allocation in this Province, it is done in a
fair and equitable manner. There are a number of issues.
There are a number of points that we have to consider as
we determine how many teachers are allocated to a
particular school. Certainly, it is not just based on
numbers. As numbers reduce, it does not mean that
teachers come out of the system. If we look at some of
the areas that we felt were important, we can look at
class size. We have put a cap on class size from Grade 1
to Grade 3 at twenty-five. Based on the new -
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
I ask the hon. the
minister to conclude her answer.
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, there is a quite a bit of information involved
in this new allocation. I am hoping I will get some
supplementary questions so I can further explain what we
are doing in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I have lots of questions,
minister.
Teachers in small schools
around the Province are already struggling to meet the
demands of curriculum that is being placed upon them by
the Department of Education and yet we hear this new
model is going to further reduce units in a lot of these
schools. I talked to a school this morning that will go
from a classroom size with one teacher from K-3 in one
class, now to K-6 in one class.
I ask you, minister: Why
have the rural schools been targeted for reduction and
more multi-grading in those classrooms?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, the new method for allocating teachers will
actually assist the schools in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. Let me explain. Prior to our class size - with
the old formula and with our cap size at twenty-five, if
we had a school that had thirty-seven students in Grade
2, the previous formula would say that you would have
one point four-eight teachers. Granted, if you had two
classes of Grade 2, you absolutely needed two Grade 2
teachers, but the old formula provided only point
four-eight if the number happened to be thirty-seven in
any particular school.
One thing that this new
formula, this new allocation model does is it puts a cap
size from kindergarten at twenty, K-3 at twenty-five,
four to six at twenty-five, and seven to nine at
twenty-seven. What it does importantly, Mr. Speaker, is
that if there is an elementary or a primary class that
meets that cap size or exceeds, that instead of having a
point four-eight position, we will actually have two
positions. So, Mr. Speaker, this should actually help
the schools.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Again,
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister my question. I will
ask her the question again, minister, because I have a
list right now of schools that are losing units and I am
sure you have a list as well, but let me just say this.
Why is
it that small schools were targeted here to reduce
units? Why is it acceptable to have schools with K-3
grades in one class, now expanded to K-6 in one
classroom with one teacher?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask members for their
co-operation.
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, the new allocation model allows the school
boards and the schools to work together to determine the
needs of the school. We also anticipated in this Budget
that we would not be losing any teacher positions in
Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not about reducing
teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is about
being able to provide a fair, equitable means of
deciding how many teachers go into each school.
In fact, Mr. Speaker,
there was additional money in the Budget this year, $3.6
million, because we anticipated there would probably
actually be more teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador
next year than what we have this year. Mr. Speaker, we
were handed with a formula that if we did not bring in a
new formula this year, and the fact that we did not
reduce teachers last year, that this year there would
have been 144 less teachers in the system this year and
the previous formula that was brought in by the previous
Administration would have saw an additional 124
positions eliminated this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister knows that
formula was not working and we admit that, and she knows
that it has not been used. She knows that it has not
been used in this Province for nearly five years -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I ended up leaving here after
Question Period with a strained throat because I was
trying to ask questions. I would appreciate it if they
could keep the noise down today.
Minister, there may not
be a layoff of teachers here but there is a reduction in
the number of teachers in the classroom in certain
schools in this Province. It is
making it more challenging to deliver programming in
these small schools and I ask if you are prepared to
take another look at those allocations?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, we will certainly, as we move through this new
allocation formula, be able to look at it and see how it
is working for our particular schools and ensure that we
have our schools resourced to the point that they are
able to offer the courses and the programs that they
need.
Mr. Speaker, it is
surprising that the Leader of the Opposition said that
the previous formula did not work because her
Administration brought it in. If they did not think it
was going to work, they should not have brought it in,
in the first place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: If
we want to talk about reductions in teachers, Mr.
Speaker, during their time in office, whether it was on
whatever formula they used or the old formula, they
actually eliminated more than 2,000 teachers; 2,105
teachers came out under the previous Administration. Mr.
Speaker, we were prepared to look at that formula to
ensure that our schools are resourced in a more
appropriate manner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The problem that minister
has is she cannot admit when she is wrong and something
is not working. This formula, minister, is not going to
work for small schools in this Province. Let me give you
this example. There are cases where teachers would have
five periods of prep time in the first fourteen days -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask members for their
co-operation. The Chair is having great difficulty in
hearing the Leader of the Opposition and I ask members
if they would allow the member to ask questions and
listen to the answers as well.
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, no trouble to know the Premier is away. The
boys are going to play now. They are all out on the
playground now, Mr. Speaker.
Let me ask the minister
this question. Teachers have been cut now in their prep
time. In fact, in some cases there will be no prep time
for these teachers in the classroom. This is not
advancement, minister; this is a step backwards. I
ask if you have any concerns about the fact that there
are many teachers in the Province under this formula
that will have no prep time for the multitude of
programs and grades that they now have to take
responsibility for?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, let me begin by saying there are more than boys
on this side of the House, and to be referred to as boys
is an absolute insult.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, this new method of allocating teachers has been
able to provide more services to the schools than what
we had in the past.
Prior to this new method,
Mr. Speaker, there was no allocation for specialists in
the K-12 system. Mr. Speaker, we brought in a method so
that we could not just have classroom teachers in the
primary and elementary grades, but also specialists as
well. We have also enhanced administrative positions,
which mean principals, in our schools throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, Mr. Speaker, just to
conclude this, we have cap sizes throughout, from K-9
that we will be implementing over three years. We have a
specialist allocation for K-6. We have more
administrators. Mr. Speaker, on top of that, we
anticipate more teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador,
but we also have 2,200 less students in our system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I intended to give the women on the other side
of the House a little bit more credit than that, but
obviously I was wrong. I will group them all into one
category if it makes the minister happy.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad
she raised the issue on administration, because what you
have done, minister, is recognize there is a need for
full-time administrators in many schools in the Province
- and I certainly compliment that - but what you failed
to recognize, was to add the extra time for them to do
this work. So many of the principals that were at
half-time, that will now go to full-time, their
half-time instructional time will have to be allocated
to other teachers in the school, causing more workload
for those teachers.
Are
you prepared to add the extra units of time to make up
for the full-time administrators?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
If there is a question,
who is the question - is somebody going to answer the
question?
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, I was waiting for you to take your seat before
I stood to answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, what we have
done in the Province with our new method of allocating
teachers, is taken an old antiquated formula - it never
made sense from the day it was brought in, that took
thousands of teachers out of the system; that would have
seen thousands of more coming out; would have seen at
least, almost 500 more out of the system, that this
government was not prepared to take out.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have
a more appropriate allocation. We will roll it out this
year, we will keep with our class sizes, and we will
increase the number of positions for administrative
units in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, do you
know who will benefit from this formula? It will be the
teachers and the students of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, one example I want to give the minister is of
how special needs students will be impacted by these
changes. The impact on the literacy and numeracy support
teachers that have been put in place in the schools in
Central Newfoundland - this special support program will
now be eliminated was what we were told this morning.
I ask the minister: How
can this be called progress when many of these students
who need the additional resources are now going to be
negatively impacted?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, last year, under our Excellence in Mathematics
Strategy, we increased teacher units in Newfoundland and
Labrador by thirty-eight. That was thirty-eight numeracy
specialists who went into the system. They will remain
in the system, Mr. Speaker.
The other thing that this
allocation method that we have developed allows schools
to do is it allows them to assign a specialist position
based on the particular needs of the school, and the
needs of the school are based on student performance.
So, if a school has a particular need, whether it is in
numeracy or literacy or other areas, it can use the
specialist allocation to make sure that they target the
areas based on student performance so they can meet the
needs of the school.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask
the minister to table for us a breakdown of the 282
schools in the Province in terms of their teacher
allocations for this coming year versus what their
teacher allocations were last year.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, once the school boards have made the
determination of the number of teachers for particular
schools we can certainly table that in the House.
What we have done this
year is we have asked the boards based on the new method
of allocation to determine what the needs are in their
schools. We have not decreased the resources or funding
for teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we
have anticipated there will be more teachers in
Newfoundland and Labrador than there was last year, Mr.
Speaker. Once we have the allocations down we can
certainly table that information.
What we haven’t done
this year is, we haven’t gone out and arbitrarily
assigned a number to the board and said, now, make this
work. What we are saying to the board this year is, tell
us what your needs are, tell us how you are going to
have your schools, what needs you are going to address
this year, how many teachers you need based on the
criteria that we have set out and we will provide
teachers.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I don’t believe this is
the minister who yesterday was going to oversee all the
inspections in schools in the Province. Now, today she
wants to wipe her hands of teacher allocations.
Minister,
many of the schools already know what their allocations
are, and I would like to get it tabled in the House of
Assembly, and I would ask that that be done within the
next couple of days.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, as I just said, once that information is
available and the boards have their final numbers
submitted to the Department of Education I will
certainly table that information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
There are a number of
families in the Province who are not pleased with the
way government is bringing forward the new baby bonus
program. I know that he has received a number of e-mails
and calls, because I have received them as well.
One woman told me her son
was born on December 25, premature because of medical
complications, and she will receive nothing under this
particular program; however, other women who had their
children within ten days after that will receive the
bonus plus the $100 benefit throughout that period.
I ask the minister: How
do you justify exempting those particular women who are
currently on maternity benefits?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. WISEMAN: I
am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the
Opposition has taken such a keen interest in one of our
Blueprint commitments of last year.
I want to repeat
something I said in this House yesterday. Last year our
Party, the Progressive Conservative Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador, laid out a platform as a part
of a provincial election. In that platform there was a
series of commitments, a series of commitments that we
plan to implement over this term and lay the foundation
for some of them to be implemented over the next term. I
say, Mr. Speaker, that was just one of them.
When we rolled that out
in the fall, it was not an announcement of a government;
it was a platform of a political party. What has
happened now in this Budget - the Budget was released
earlier this week.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. minister
to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This time, now as a
government, we decided that there was going to be an
implementation date, and that implementation date was
January 1, 2008.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, last week when I asked the minister if women
who are currently on maternity leave would get the $100
a month payment he said yes; then he backtracked and
said no. Well, I think his first answer would have been
the more appropriate answer.
I ask you again,
Minister: Women who are
currently on maternity leave today, and will be for the
next four, six or eight months, will they be eligible
for the $100 benefit? Will you change you mind and
ensure that these women are eligible?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I want to be very clear about this so there is
no misunderstanding.
I stood in the House and
I indicated to the members opposite, and to the members
of this House, that I misunderstood the Leader of the
Opposition’s question when I had answered it the day
before. I want to be clear for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador particularly, so there is no
confusion at all.
This program was
introduced effective January 1, 2008. Anyone who had a
child, or adopted a child, on January 1 will be entitled
to the $1,000. They will, in addition to that, be
entitled to $100 per month for twelve months. It starts
on January 1, 2008.
With any program - there
has never been a program introduced by this government,
or any government prior to us, or will be by any
government in the future, that will not have an
effective date. Those who made the –
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
With that effective date
comes the benefits growing from that program.
Unfortunately –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there were
about 1,100 babies born in this Province who will be
exempt from this benefit, meaning that there are
approximately 1,100 women in this Province who were on
maternity leave - and most of them still are - as of
January 1, 2008, when this program came into effect. We
know they will not get the $1,000; but, Minister, will
you at least approve the $100 monthly benefit for those
1,100 or so women out there who are still on maternity
leave?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I am not really certain what the member is
trying to get at. I am not sure if she understands –
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. WISEMAN: I
want to give a definition, Mr. Speaker, a definition of
effective date. That is the time on a calendar or on a
clock which something comes into force. The effective
date of this program is January 1, 2008.
Mr. Speaker, many people
were born last year. In fact, the party opposite was in
power for ten or fifteen years. I suspect that there
were probably - at 5,000 births a year - 50,000 or
60,000 children born during their tenure in government.
Do they want us to go back and pick them up because they
failed to introduce progressive legislation? I don’t
think so, but when we bring in programs we have to have
an effective date, I say, Mr. Speaker.
Let me repeat again, the
effective date is January 1.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for
the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, last Monday the Minister of Environment and
Conservation announced changes to the Butter Pot Park
reservation system that came into effect, I think it was
yesterday. In particular, the minister announced that
twenty-five seasonal sites would no longer be set aside
for some patrons, leaving all forty seasonal sites
available for reservation.
I ask the minister: How
and when did you make the twenty-five affected families
aware of this change in policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this
reservation system came into effect in 2007 and, as a
result of being in operation for one year, we thought it
best to do a review. There were some complaints that
came in over the year.
As part of that review,
one of the issues raised was the campers at Butter Pot,
and that there were twenty-five sites set aside for
these campers. So, as part of that review we looked at
that. We wanted to provide equal access to all people in
the Province to have access to that public resource.
Those people were notified the day of the announcement,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: In
2005 the then minister worked with the Butter Pot
seasonal campers committee to establish a grandfather
clause to recognize those families, their long-term
investment in Butter Pot Park, and they were there, Mr.
Speaker, for twenty-five to thirty years.
I ask the minister: Why
did you decide to revoke an agreement that was made by
your government, with no consultation with those
affected?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr.
Speaker, governments review policies all the time so
that we make them better for people, for all people, of
the Province.
One of the things that
stood out was that there were twenty-five sites that
were not available through the reservation system. That
was something that set off an alarm, and we looked at
that to make it fair and equitable to all people of the
Province.
The hon. member mentioned
that some of these people have been there for
twenty-five to thirty years. In some cases, Mr. Speaker,
some of them are only there a couple of years. In fact,
what happened was the people who were camping there in
2004 were automatically allowed to be grandfathered in,
in 2005.
It was not a fair system
that was put out to all of the people, to the public,
and in the interest of fairness that is why I changed
the policy, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, despite being given a last-minute chance to
make their case, those twenty-five grandfathered clause
campers were told they would have to reserve their sites
on-line.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. BUTLER:
I ask the minister: Why would
these senior campers be only offered on-line
registration as a means to secure their sites?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr.
Speaker, I have to tell the member I did not quite get
the question at the end, but these twenty-five people
did have the same opportunity as all of the other
500,000 people in the Province, to have the opportunity
to book this site at 7:00 a.m. on Monday morning, of
this week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, I overheard someone say that I agreed with this
when the minister made her statement last week. I agreed
with many of the changes, but I can assure you I did not
mention the one on Butter Pot Park.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask members for their
co-operation.
Ministers are having
difficulty hearing the question in order to provide an
answer. I ask members for their co-operation or the
Chair will have no other choice but recognize members.
The hon. the Member for
the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: How
did any of your decisions actually solve the problem of
high demand for park spaces? Why would you not eliminate
seasonal passes all together, because they still can
have seasonal passes?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member stands on
this, but this is a public resource and because it is a
public resource that is paid for by the taxpayers of
this Province, every single resident in the Province
should have access to those sites.
Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure where he is. We did have a conversation on the
phone about it after and my understanding - I did meet.
I did provide an opportunity to the people to come in
and express their concerns. I told them where I stood on
the issue but I did give them the opportunity to hear
them out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
Many seniors need home
care right now, as I spoke to the minister about
yesterday on the floor, but cannot afford it because the
co-pay is too high, or they are one of the 40 per cent
of applicants who are denied any subsidy at all.
Government has admitted that the financial assessment
tool is too restrictive and needs to be replaced and I
know that there is a study going on.
Mr. Speaker, will the
minister, in the short term, replace the home support
financial assessment tool right away with the assessment
procedure now used in the low-income Prescription Drug
Program as a model for making assessment?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: The
financial assessment tool that is currently being used
for home support services, for placement in personal
care homes, and other kinds of supports for seniors and
persons with disabilities has been on the go for a long,
long time; implemented long before our Administration
formed government.
One of the things that we
are committed to, Mr. Speaker, is making some
significant change and reform in our long-term care and
community support sector. One of the pieces of that, and
as I said yesterday, one of the pieces of that is the
financial assessment tool that is currently being used.
We want to do it right, Mr. Speaker. We just do not want
to do it in a piecemeal fashion. We want to do what is
right. We want to do what is right for today’s
generation. We want to do what is right for future
generations to make sure that what we have are programs
and services that are responsive to the changing needs
of seniors, and also that are sustainable in the long
term. Our financial assessment tool is one of the
cornerstone pieces of that, and when we have the
analysis completely done and we are ready to move
forward, then and only then will we make any change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the minister
would know, as I do, that short-term and long-term
planning is part of all planning and sometimes one has
to have interim steps in a long-term plan. Again, the
minister also knows, the financial assessment for home
support is far more restrictive than the financial
assessment that is done when a person goes into a
long-term care or personal care facility.
Will the minister
immediately direct the regional health authorities to
replace the home care financial assessment tool with the
one used to qualify for assistance in a long-term care
or personal care facility?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: The
member opposite can frame the question in multiple ways,
but there is only one answer, and that is the one I gave
yesterday, the one I gave two weeks ago, and the one I
am about to repeat again - which is, fundamentally, we
are in the process of revamping our long-term care and
community support system, and we are looking at all
aspects of that. The financial assessment tool that we
currently use is one aspect of that. I say, Mr. Speaker,
and I repeat again, we are - as she has acknowledged -
in the middle of an evaluation of that tool as we speak.
When we are finished that assessment and we have clearly
defined what might be an appropriate financial
assessment tool for the future, then, and only then,
will we be prepared then to roll anything new out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I will point out to the
minister that I am not the only one unhappy with the
same answer that he gives to my question, no matter
which way I put it - I realize what I am doing - but
there are many people out there unhappy with his answer.
It is clear to them now that he is not going to do
anything to meet with the needs that are in place at the
moment that people are suffering from.
Okay, I will ask a
question with regard to the long-term. Mr. Speaker,
jurisdictions across Canada are recognizing that demand
for home care will only increase and that the level of
care must be based on need, rather than ability to pay.
Government cannot continue to heap great pressure on the
shoulders of one of the most vulnerable groups in our
Province.
Will the long-term care
and home support strategy, the long-term plan that he is
looking at, include home care based on need, and not on
ability to pay?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Our
government has clearly demonstrated in the last four
years that we are committed to enhancing home support
services in this Province. We have grown from some $85
million of four years ago, to some $115 million today.
In fact, there was $10 million, I think my colleague
introduced in the Budget recently; $10 million to
enhance further capacity in the home support system, I
say, Mr. Speaker - all very clearly a reflection of our
government’s commitment to enhance the programs and
services to an aging population and persons with
disabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. |
