The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we start routine proceedings, the Chair would like to deal with the points of order and points of privilege that were raised on December 6, 2000.

On December 6, the Member for Bay of Islands and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace rose on points of order, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace rose on points of privilege, all of which the Chair, of course, took under advisement. All of these points dealt with the same matter, and the Chair proposes to rule on them together.

Members took exception to the remarks of the Member for Cape St. Francis, who they believed had suggested during oral Question Period that they had received direction from the Premier concerning how they were to vote at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. The Member for Cape St. Francis stated, and I quote from Hansard of December 6, page 1404, "Mr. Speaker, the government members on the PAC are appointed by the Premier and Cabinet. They do his bidding and they take direction from him and Cabinet."

In the opinion of the Chair, the Member for Cape St. Francis, in these remarks, is imputing motives to three members who raised points of privilege, and imputing wrong motives has often been ruled unparliamentary. I refer member to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, §409.(7) which states, "A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it." Subparagraph 481.(e) states: that a member, while speaking, must not "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member."

The Chair therefore rules that there is no point of privilege but finds that the Member for Cape St. Francis has used unparliamentary language. I now invite him to withdraw those remarks.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Speaker's ruling, but that does not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked the hon. member to withdraw his remarks.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw my remarks because I believe them to be true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have stated already two sections of Beauchesne where the hon. member certainly has used unparliamentary language. I ask him to consider what he has just said, and I ask him again to withdraw his remarks.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience, withdraw those remarks because I believe what I said the other day to be true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am going to ask the hon. member once more to consider the seriousness of this matter because, when unparliamentary language is used, hon. members have to show some respect for this institution. I ask the hon. member again to consider the consequences of what he is doing right now.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have thought about this very seriously. I respect your ruling but, in all conscience, I cannot withdraw the remarks. Doesn't this House rule to protect those who tell the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has no choice but to name the hon. member, Mr. Jack Byrne.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a motion is in order, but I wish to support the Chair. It is a sad day that I make the motion that the member be named and that he be removed from this Chamber for the rest of this sitting day.

MR. SPEAKER: You have all heard the motion.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to stand in this hon. House today and recognize a little girl who, just a couple of months ago, was very instrumental in saving her grandmother's life. I speak about Brooke Bartlett. Brooke is just four years old, and she is in the gallery today. Her grandmother has a medical condition that caused her to go unconscious and fall over the stairs. Brooke was the only other person in the house with her. She called 911. She was very articulate, very calm, and the folks at 911 will confirm that it is probably one of the best and most articulate calls they have received.

Brooke directed them to her grandmother's house. She was there at the door to receive them, and when the paramedics said, "Maybe you would like to stay with a neighbour while we take your grandmother to the hospital and take care of her", she said, "No, my grandmother is very old" - which in fact she is not, but - "my grandmother is very old and she needs me."

The happy outcome of that is: her grandmother was admitted to the hospital and was taken care of. As a result of Brooke's swift and conscientious efforts, her grandmother was kept out of possible extreme danger.

I would like to invite Brooke out to the lobby after Question Period, and I am going to present her with a certificate: To Brooke Alexendra Bartlett, in recognition of her swift and conscientious action in responding to her grandmother's medical crisis of September 30, 2000.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House of Assembly that government has approved an initiative to actively promote the establishment of a silicon smelter in Labrador.

Labrador West has an extensive amount of high quality silica deposits and hydro-electric power which are the two essential ingredients for the commercial development of a silicon smelter. Once processed, silicon is used in many things including ceramics, tires and computer chips.

Silica, commonly known as Quartzite, is a very common natural mineral; however, it is unusual to find it in large pure concentrations such as that found in Western Labrador. Quartzite is prominent in the Labrador City and Wabush area where it forms notable ridges. The Quartzite is of a high quality with potential resources in the tens of millions of tonnes.

Labrador West is an ideal location for the establishment of a silicon smelter. In addition to the rich resource base and inexpensive power, the region has the necessary industrial infrastructure in place. As well, Labrador West offers a favourable business climate and an inviting lifestyle. All of these factors make this region of our Province an attractive place for such an investment.

Government will be launching a promotional drive at this time because of the expected global need for silicon smelting capacity by 2005. Should our promotional efforts pay off, a silicon smelter could create up to 130 jobs and could serve to encourage further investment in this mineral rich area of the Province.

Our consultant has advised us that there will be a need for at least one silicon smelter by 2004. The most likely scenario is that there will be a requirement for four or five smelters by the year 2010. Western world consumption of silicon metal has expanded at a rate of 2.6 per cent per year. Markets are indeed promising for silicon.

The Department of Mines and Energy will be making an all-out attempt to promote Labrador West in national and international markets.

This promotional campaign will see the distribution of a comprehensive advertising brochure. As well, site visits will be arranged for all major companies involved in the development and promotion of silicon.

Government is fully committed to the creation of development opportunities for Labrador.

Newfoundland and Labrador offers an investor friendly climate. This campaign is part of government's overall plan to promote the Province as a good place to live, work and raise a family. I have every confidence that our campaign will be successful.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is, indeed, a positive statement and I am sure the residents of Labrador West, and, indeed, all the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be pleased with this announcement. However, I am sure the residents of Labrador West must be shaking their heads because as positive an announcement as this is, they have to be asking the question: Where was this government two-and-a-half years ago with respect to a decision that was made in allowing IOC job transfers to Sept Ilse, Quebec? Again, the residents of Labrador West have to be wondering exactly why.

Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, a very positive announcement with what we see here as value added activity taking place in our Province, and in particular Labrador West, and let's hope that such value added activity extends beyond silicon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister on his statement. At least something can wake the other side of the House up.

Mr. Speaker, this is good news and I certainly commend the minister on this initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: It was a lot of hard work and determination by the owners of this mine who sacrificed, probably, everything they had financially in order to get this mine up and running. It has been very successful so far. There are very few silicon smelters in the world. The necessity for silica will continue to increase in the years to come. The Hyron Board and others have been working hard as well pursuing the possibility of getting a smelter for Labrador West.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: In addition, we do have the people in the area who are skilled in mining and have great knowledge in the mining industry. There is a school being run now through the college for the Employee of the Future Program which will train people for mining companies' needs in the future.

This is, indeed, good news and we certainly hope that the initiative is successful.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to share with you some of the exciting findings contained in an evaluation on the Single Parent Employment Support Program.

The Single Parent Support Program, as you may recall, is a joint initiative between the Department of Human Resources and Employment and the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. Launched in 1998, the pilot program helps single parents on income support obtain full time employment and work towards becoming financially independent.

The last time I spoke about this pilot, in the House of Assembly, my department and the Single Parent Association were beginning to commission an overall evaluation of the program. I am pleased to report that the evaluation is now complete and the results are very promising.

The report confirms that the Single Parent Employment Support Program initiative is doing what it was designed to do. It assists single parents to find and keep jobs so that they can become more financially independent. It is doing this by providing access to supports such as: child care, transportation, job search assistance, an earned income supplement, and also important personal support through the Single Parent Association.

Mr. Speaker, of the 173 single parents that have taken part in the program between August 1998, and May 2000, approximately 75 per cent have found full or part time employment. Not only are they finding work, but they are maintaining it. Our evaluation has also shown that these single parents were $4,000, approximately, better off financially than a similar group of single parents who did not participate in this program.

The report authors heard many stories about how this program is helping to transform peoples' lives. Single parents talked about feeling empowered, about feeling more confident. They talked about having bank accounts for the first time, about how their income was allowing them to make choices about where they lived, and how their children were, for the first time, inviting friends home.

This is a true partnership. Staff from Human Resources and Employment and the Single Parent Association are working together for clients. The approaches we are piloting here are part of our overall redesign process and they reaffirm the department's commitment to working with the community in building strong partnerships that will improve the well-being of our citizens.

The report confirms that investing our funds differently gives people the opportunity to change their lives, and the lives of their families. This is an important theme of government's Strategic Social Plan. The department intends to continue this pilot project with the Single Parent Association for two to three more years, in order to determine the long-term outcomes for our clients.

I also want to mention before closing that there will be another intake for the Single Parent Employment Program after Christmas, beginning in January. Single parents who are interested in taking part should contact the association or my department.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to members of the House, two members of the Single Parent Association who are here in the gallery. The Executive Director, Margaret Acreman, and Yvette Walton, who is the coordinator of the Single Parent Employment Support Program, have been key to the success of this very exciting partnership.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure updating you on this initiative.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement prior to the House opening.

I would like to commend the folks from the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland for their participation in this, but I say to the minister that there are another bunch of single parents out there, and obviously they are not the ones included here. On a regular basis, I am receiving calls to my office about people, single mothers in particular, who are trying to get into the workforce or who have just gotten off social assistance into the workforce and their daycare subsidies are not being approved. Their daycare subsidies, which they had last year, have been cut. The daycare subsidy will provide transportation to the daycare but not from the daycare to home. There is a constant problem with that. So there is another group of people out there who are not accessing and not availing of these programs.

As well, there are more children in poverty. Statistics show that there are more children living in poverty in this Province than ever before. While it does give some sense of dignity to the single parents to go out and get employment, one of the main concerns I have is that they move from living below the poverty line, while on social assistance, to becoming a part of the working poor, and I think that should be addressed as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We join in congratulating the successful participants in this program and the associations that have been involved in achieving it. I have to say, once again, that we have a pilot project that the minister is now saying is going to go on for another two or three more years. Do thousands of single parents in this Province have to wait three years for a program that obviously is going to help, when you provide child care, transportation, job search assistance, earned income supplement and personal support through a support group, that it is going to help single parents get jobs. It has been proven to work. We do not need to wait three years for more study before this government gets off its backside and does something significant instead of being complacent about the problems of the single parents of this Province.

It is not enough to say we have a pilot project going for five years when we know the results are what the minister has said they are in the past, and what she is saying they are now. Let us put a program in place for all the single parents of this Province.

MS BETTNEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, there has been a misinterpretation of the information by the hon. member. The recommendation of the evaluators, the people who prepared this report, was that the department continue this for two to three years for the express purpose that I have identified in my statement. In making this point, it is to say that we are taking the recommendation of the people who have evaluated this whole program and following through with what they recommend as good practice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the annual report.

MR. NOEL: Do not be too optimistic.

Mr. Speaker, as United Nations International Year for a Culture of Peace comes to a close, I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. colleagues in the House another initiative to reduce violence and encourage peaceful relations between people and countries.

January 1, 2001 will mark the advent of the United Nations International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, in accordance with resolution 53/25 passed November 10, 1998.

The culture of peace is defined to include a set of values, attitudes, and lifestyles which enhance the human experience through ending violence. This initiative is being pursued through the promotion and practice of non-violence through education, dialogue and cooperation. We must strengthen our commitment to peaceful settlement of conflicts, equal rights and opportunities for women and men, and expanding the right to freedom of expression, opinion and information. Just and peaceful existence requires adherence to the principles of freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, solidarity, cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity and dialogue at all levels, and among all nations.

The year 2001, Mr. Speaker, will also be the anniversary of a significant historical event with which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are closely associated. August 12 will mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Atlantic Charter in 1941. The Charter is considered by many to constitute an important component of the founding of the United Nations. It was the product of the Atlantic Conference, the historic meeting between British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They met in great secrecy from August 9-12 on board the HMS Prince of Wales and the USS Augusta in Ship Harbour, Placentia Bay. I am currently working with interested citizens in that area, and others, to help develop an appropriate commemoration of our association with that important event.

The Atlantic Charter was the major outcome of that meeting sixty years ago. It is a declaration of eight common principles of international relations intended to establish post-war peace. The proclamation was subsequently endorsed by fifteen countries, and became the foundation of shared hopes and goals for the Grand Alliance of Nations which overcame the Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan, in 1945. This league of nations was responsible for the establishment of the United Nations.

It required a devastating war to achieve the peaceful settlement of 1945. As we remember that tragedy, let us commit ourselves ever more to promoting peaceful reconciliation as the civilized alternative to war.

Mr. Speaker, reminding my hon. colleagues of two significant initiatives in pursuit of peace is very timely. It was only last week that we recognized the White Ribbon Campaign as a symbol of opposition to men's violence against women, and the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women. And, just yesterday, this House passed Bill 33 which establishes a Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom HaShoah, for our Province as a day of reflection on the enduring tragedy and lessons of the notorious Holocaust.

War is the most universal and visible demonstration of violence. However, we need look no further than our own communities, in our own time, to see manifestations of violence. Violence is a learned response. Just as children are taught to read and write, swim and ride bikes, they can be taught to reject violence and respect peace.

Influences on children today are less controllable than in previous generations. Parents have to exercise increasing vigilance over the cultural influences of modern communications and technology which have great potential for harm as well as an enlightenment. Because it is so difficult to control access to information in our time, we have greater responsibility to ensure children understand the differences between good and evil, and are impressed by accurate, responsible and positive influences; resulting in the production of children like young Miss Brooke Alexandra Bartlett, whom we recognized earlier in this session today.

Legislators have integral and significant roles to play in promoting a culture of peace and harmony. We must assume our responsibility to contribute to making the 21st Century one of justice, peace and reconciliation. I invite all hon. colleagues to join me in recognizing the start of the United Nations Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World on January 1, 2001.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the minister, for providing a copy of his statement prior to the opening of the House. I join with the minister in recognizing the start of the United Nations Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World. This is, indeed, a difficult world to raise children. As well, it is a difficult world for children to grow up in as well. We find that our children are suffering from more stress these days, and adolescent lives are generally more complicated. We see that by the rise in the suicide rate. I guess this is a result of the advances in communications that have brought with them exposure to all sorts of violence.

We need to promote non-violence through education, and we need to make more counseling available to the children who need it. We do have some resources in place, but we must be vigilant. We must maintain the resources that we have but also increase resources so that the waiting time for children to get in to see psychologists and psychiatrists is not six, eight or ten months, as it is now; because obviously as result of what our children are exposed to, they are experiencing a higher stress level. Our children are our greatest investment. They are the future of this world.

I am also glad to hear that the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the Atlantic Accord in Placentia Bay will also be getting the recognition it deserves - the Atlantic Charter, I am sorry. An appropriate commemoration acknowledging the historical significance of this event is welcome indeed.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to join with the minister and the Member for St. John's West in supporting the beginning of an International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, sponsored by the United Nations. As a father of three young children, obviously, and as a Legislature, we all have concerns about the state of peace in the world, and particularly how children are affected by violence.

Speaking of the United Nations, it is good that the United Nations is doing this; however, there has to be greater action at the international level so that things that happened, such as in Rwanda, where the United Nations was there, knew of the coming violence, knew of the plans for genocide, and yet did not take sufficient action to prevent the slaughter of innocence taking place, using children as the promoters of the violence, seeing young children with their limbs hacked off by others, and the horrors that took place in the past decade in the world with the United Nations, in effect, looking on at it happening.

We would like to see more action at the international level to back up the kind of initiatives taken by declaring a decade as a Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence. We, too, at the local level, have to take action as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: We, too, have to be concerned and take action at the local level as well when we see things like I pointed out the other day - the promotion of assault rifles as toys, and things like that in our local culture and media - and we have to find ways ourselves to try and decrease the amount of violence in our own society. I look forward to discussing ways in which that might be done in the future.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. The Budget for the 2000-2001 fiscal year committed $1.3 million for increases in subsidies and rates for the personal care home industry. Subsidized personal care homes only received between $300,000 and $400,000 out of that $1.3 million. Will the minister now provide a breakdown of where the remaining $1 million is being spent?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly do so.

The issue of the increases for personal care homes, and the availability of it, was also tied into a policy debate that has being going on in the Province for some time. The policy issue is that many people - most people, I would expect - in Newfoundland and Labrador, have felt for some time that rather than the government subsidizing a bed in a particular facility, for personal care homes, that individuals who need personal care and would like to go to a home should be assessed to see whether or not they are entitled to a subsidy themselves that they could take to the home of their choice, rather than going to a home because it has a subsidy and other homes do not have a subsidy.

In the $1.3 million that was allocated in the Budget, we were very proud to have done two things: We did provide an increase, and we hope it to be the first of several annual increases for the existing operators of homes that are already subsidized. That left over half of the homes that have no beds subsided in them now with a circumstance where there were no increases for them, and the people in many regions of the Province are already now being assessed; because, for the first time in history, we do have about $700,000 of the $1.3 million that will be paid out to individuals who have demonstrated a need, who need to go into a personal care home, and can take a voucher with them so that they can go to the home of their choice and get the service they need rather than being forced to go to a home that was given a subsidy some twenty or thirty years ago and the person needing the care had no choice or control over that. So, we have made a policy shift and the money was used to pay existing subsidies an increase and then to begin to move to the personal subsidy instead of a home subsidy.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did not answer the question. I know very well, and I have said in this House that I endorse it. I said it years ago, before government ever did. I cannot disagree with subsidizing clients as opposed to homes. Clients are important. The minister avoided it. He would not give the breakdown on the million dollars. The fiscal year is nearly over and he still will not tell the public where it is spent. That is accountability and transparency.

Personal care homes get $968 a month to care for residents who need Level I and Level II care, but your department pays publicly-run nursing homes over $3,000 a month to care for those people in Level I and Level II care.

Why, Minister, are you discriminatory in forcing personal care homes to care for the elderly for less than one-third of the cost that you are paying government-run nursing homes to do the job?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the hon. member does pride himself in his working knowledge of matters in health and community services. I know he will want to get up and explain to people that he does know the difference between the level of care in a nursing home and the level of care in a personal care home.

The fact of the matter is that we do have, in the $1.3 million, some $500,000 to $600,000 that was paid out in increases to existing homes and we have implemented a new program, that he admits he supports and is the right direction, for the other $700,000.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that because of the history of the development of these homes, both the personal care homes and the nursing homes in Newfoundland and Labrador, that there are some clients now in personal care homes who, because their health has deteriorated, are in need of nursing home attention. They are not yet in nursing homes, so they are inappropriately placed, and we are trying to move them.

There are again in some areas of the Province, because there are no personal care homes but there are nursing homes, where there are some people inappropriately placed. There are residents who do not need nursing care attention who are in nursing homes because there are no other facilities for them in the area. If he would like for us to throw them out in the street, toss them out in the street, rather than let them get the care close to their homes, that they are getting today, maybe he should stand up and say that instead of trying to be cute about the issue, trying to confuse the issue, and trying to suggest that the government is being discriminatory.

Again, the government is interested in providing care for the people, not in trying to play crass politics with serious health related matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not playing crass political games. I will answer any question directly, what I feel on the issue. That is something the minister has not done to any one of my questions yet. He is avoiding the issue.

I will give him a brief little lesson, in case he did not hear what I said in the question. Nursing homes are supposed to have only Level III and Level IV residents, and personal care homes have Level I and Level II, where there are licensed to take in Level II. Why are you forcing personal care homes to the edge of bankruptcy by allowing Level I and Level II residents to continue to be admitted to nursing homes here in our Province, Minister? It is still happening.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

The whole point again, I guess, that the hon. member would suggest is that in areas where there are nursing homes available but no personal care homes available, and people have been admitted, I guess his recommendation would be that the person be denied any level of care and be thrown out in the street.

We recognize and we work with the situation every day, that there are some people who are in the inappropriate facility. Over time, we are trying to accommodate their needs and move them into a more appropriate facility.

Mr. Speaker, I do firmly believe that the personal care home operators, even though they would like to have a greater increase, appreciate the fact that this government has increased their rates each time for the last five years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - not a bundle every year, but each of the last five years there has been an increase, and we hope to increase it next year, the year after, and the year after.

I am pleased that he is on the public record as saying that he does agree with and fully supports the government initiative to have personal subsidies be the matter and the rule of law in the Province, and the whole basis for that service, instead of continuing on forever and a day, subsidizing beds that were put in place thirty years ago in some cases, which need to be replaced, altered, or maybe even removed today.

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan, we will do it over time, and I am sure he will work with us to do it, and do it on behalf of the residents.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The increases you have given - I have them right back since the 1980s - have come almost exclusively as a claw back on the increase they are getting on their old age supplement and federal allowances and you are clawing it back. That is where the increases have come from, not out of the coffers of the provincial government, I might tell the minister.

Nova Scotia homeowners have an occupancy rate, a guarantee level, of 95 per cent, and they are paid three times as much to care for the elderly as here in our Province. Your government commissioned a study over ten years ago, and has a report on rate structure review for personal care homes which recommends a profit margin return on their investment. There have been other reports, as the minister is very well aware, since. There have been several others.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The question - for the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, if he wants the question - is: Why hasn't this government acted on recommendations to ensure the future stability of the most cost-effective delivery of health care in our Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have acted on the recommendations, not 100 per cent, but we have moved in the exact direction that has been recommended. Each year for the past six years now there have been increases given to the operators of personal care homes in terms of the subsidy that has been available to them from the government on behalf of the residents who cannot pay the full cost of the service themselves. There have been increases. The total amount of money available to the operators of the homes - the total amount - has increased every year.

I am sure that the residents themselves, in those particular facilities, who have to give up all their own personal earnings and income - they have to give up all of it, except $125 to keep for incidental use for themselves - those residents are comfortable that they are getting a better level of care and that the operators have a better financial ability to give them the level of care that they deserve today, than they did last year, the year before that, and the year before that, because we have increased the funding to them every year.

I know he would like for us to give all the money that the treasury has to every single group, every single day, but we try to take a balanced approach and deal with all the problems as best we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot see why records from his department show you went four years without any increase at all - in records that I have from your department.

The average net cost to government, including the personal care allowance of $125 that you mentioned, to each resident in a personal care home, for a senior who is receiving old age security, the average cost to this government is $129 a month. In a nursing home, the cost is $2,000 a month, the average net cost.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that the savings in a personal care home for the same level of care - in light of that fact - is almost $1,900 a month, almost $23,000 a year, and across the system there are hundreds of people in this category -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - why, Minister, are you allowing almost $10 million in waste in one particular aspect of our system here? Why aren't you doing something about the huge waste of taxpayers' dollars?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure if we cut through the rhetoric and got to the point of all the questions that have been asked, the basic question is: How come there are some seniors in need of care who are in Level III and IV nursing homes when in fact they do not need nursing home care? It is because that over time, and we have all shared in this equally, governments from both stripes - because this group did have control for seventeen sad and sorry years. We have to remember that. Over that time, governments did allow certain institutions to be built in certain physical locations in the Province, and the population shifts have occurred. There are now different numbers and components of seniors in the population in different areas of the Province. He may want to take seniors out of a nursing home because that is the only place available to them and throw them into the streets - because there is no personal care home available - but we will not do it. We will work with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We will try to make the shifts over time and try to accommodate the needs of the seniors and the elderly, not necessarily the few people that he is speaking on behalf of today who happened to have come to him, had a meeting with them, pleaded a case with them, and now he is on their side and wants to give them all the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The names Milgaard, Marshall and Moran are synonymous with the notion of wrongful conviction in this country. In a comparatively small Province, as our own, we also have three names synonymous, I say to the minister, with the notion of wrongful conviction and those names are: Randy Druken, Ronald Dalton and Gregory Parsons.

Why is it, Minister, that you and your department refuse, at all times, any request for an inquiry to investigate these cases to determine why these three men, having gone through our system of justice, were wrongfully convicted?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member should first of all get his facts straight with regards to what we have and have not investigated. First of all, our system of criminal justice works on a checks and balance fashion. The system may not be perfect but the system has existed for centuries in the Western World. As I say, it may not be perfect but there are checks and balances built into it. I have referred to this matter, and I am sure the hon. member has heard my comments on CBC as well in this regard. This government has not shunned at any time, certainly not the Department of Justice, in responding, as is appropriate to these concerns.

With regard to the instance - and I will not get into any particular details here that is not appropriate to get into, but regards to the matter referred to here in the case of Mr. Druken, the matter is still under investigation. There has been a stay entered. The RNC are still investigating and I refuse to comment in this House or anywhere else on a criminal case that is not yet concluded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: With regard to the case of Mr. Dalton that has been referred to, Mr. Dalton was convicted in the early 1990s. Mr. Dalton was convicted by a judge and jury in this Province, which is our system as I referred to. Mr. Dalton had counsel file an appeal. The appeal was not perfected for eight years. That is not a fault of the Justice Department or the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The system is there to be utilized by the individuals who are part of that system.

In the case of Mr. Parsons that has been referred to, yes, Mr. Parsons has been exonerated by evidence that was found subsequently, and let there be no misunderstanding as to who agreed once it became known that there was other evidence that there should, in fact, be an acquittal entered in the case of Mr. Parsons. It was this government that agreed with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: If the hon. member is referring to the Gregory Parsons incident from the point of view of conversation, I will remind the hon. member again, and he is well aware, has been a solicitor, as to how the civil justice system works.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: The matter is currently before the courts in the civil system and I will see it unfold there as it should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister in the past, and again today, refers to the checks and balances. I can only assume that in the case of Mr. Milgaard, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Moran there were also checks and balances, but in those particular cases, there were inquiries and subsequently, I would assume, there was compensation.

I will ask the minister again: What is his problem with respect to the conducting of full-scale public inquiries as to why these three people, these three men - and how this affects their families - how and why these three men were so wrongfully convicted in this Province? Why not full-scale public inquiries, I ask the minister?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is something the hon. member does not understand. I thought I was quite clear. I have no intention of recommending any inquiries into any matters in which an investigation has not yet been completed. I have no intention either of delving into the complexities and responsibilities of the Federal Minister of Justice in the Milgaard case, or any other case. That is not in his jurisdiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In the case of Mr. Druken, the investigation continues. In the case of Mr. Dalton, the case has ended. The checks and balances worked and the jury acquitted him. It has ended.

In the case of Mr. Parsons, the matter does not deal with wrongful convictions at this time. It is an issue of compensation. It is before the courts. Mr. Parsons' lawyers issued a Statement of Claim. Government has no choice - the Statement of Claim was issued - other than follow the process. The discoveries are ongoing in Mr. Parsons' case. Let things unfold before we start suggesting inquiries or anything else. The inquiries are being made in the system that we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A Final Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it was the Sophonov case in the Province of Manitoba where, as part of a public inquiry, it was found and recommended that there be compensation. In fact, the quantum of that compensation was established at the inquiry. I ask the minister, with respect to Gregory Parsons, why do you and your department refuse to offer compensation to Mr. Parsons so that he and his young family can, for the first time in a very long time, lead a normal life and attempt to somehow put the past behind them?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, again, with respect to the Gregory Parsons matter and the compensation issue, aside from the wrongful conviction issue, the compensation issue. The Department of Justice of this Province recommended, and engaged in fact, the services of Justice Nathaniel Noel, retired Supreme Court Judge, to enter into consideration of the compensation issue. It was counsel for Gregory Parsons who issued a Statement of Claim. Once the Statement of Claim is issued, any consideration of compensation had to come off the table. That is the process. That is a fact. I believe in fact, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Development. Whenever government money is invested into an activity there should be full accountability and careful financial management to ensure the public investment and public interest is protected. None of that appears to have happened with Steelcor -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Minister, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador has shown total incompetence and disregard for public money and the public interest in the way they dealt with Steelcor. I ask the minister, why Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador expanded its ownership of Steelcor from 25 per cent to 51 per cent but have never received an audited financial statement from that company?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the Member for St. John's South, I would assume he is referring to the Auditor General's Report on the reporting and monitoring of Steelcor. Let me suggest to the hon. member that we agree with the Auditor General, that there were not any audited statements provided. But does not preclude the fact that government did not know what was happening to the money that poured into Steelcor Industries Incorporated. We have had membership on the board, we still have membership on the board, we also do weekly and monthly monitoring of cash flows, we also take part in the issuing of contracts, and -

MR. FITZGERALD: How much money did you put into it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McLEAN: From day one we have known where our money is being spent in Steelcor. Let me say to the hon. member as well, that these are high risk businesses that we were looking at in areas where there is very high unemployment. In the Buchans area, when the mines went out of business, there was very high unemployment so we had to take chances and go in there with very, I guess, substantial amounts of money in order to ensure that these businesses had a good opportunity to survive. What we have done since then is monitored. We have also indicated that we put them into bankruptcy. The Buchans Development Corporation was provided with money to ensure that Steelcor went into an orderly bankruptcy so that we can deal with that and get it off to the private sector, which we hope to have completed in the next few days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, the value of that company is less than $700,000. Government invested more than $4 million into that company.

I ask the minister this: Why has your department invested another $175,000 in that company, just two months ago, to put it into bankruptcy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that we did not put $175,000 into Steelcor. It went into the Buchans Development Corporation so that we could have an orderly windup of the company, so that when the creditors got together, as they did in the last few days, to deal with selling off the company to a private sector, which we hope will be concluded in the next few days and it will come to a very positive result.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Minister, you probably will not even get your $175,000 back.

While this company continued to get paid for contracts, they refused to pay their debt to government. In fact, since 1993, the owners put absolutely no private money into this company at all. Why would government continue to invest, since 1993, $1.4 million into that company, even though the book value was less than $700,000?

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

MR. McLEAN: Let me say to the hon. member again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McLEAN: - Steelcor was started in an area where there is very high unemployment, it is a high risk opportunity because it was a new form of business to the Province, and basically, what we have done is try to keep it going. What is the point in taking a company and letting it go bankrupt right off the bat, the first year or so or whatever? These are very high unemployment areas. We need to try and try and try again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) must to be reading Jack's questions. Now Roger has to be telling them how to do it over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, we have faith in the rural parts of this Province so we continue to try and make the companies work. That is why we continue to put money into this particular company.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and it concerns the lack of consultation, the inadequate consultation, on the Main River, Canadian Heritage Draft Management Plan.

Mr. Speaker, after announcing on December 4th, for the first time in this part of the Province, that consultation would take place on the 5th and 6th in two locations on the West Coast, the Draft Management Plan shows - I will read from page 12 in talking about special forest areas to be protected. It says: the Main River corridor will protect approximately_____ of this forest type and beyond, in the view shed corridor, an additional_____ will be set aside.

Will the minister not admit that the Draft Management Plan, as put forth, is inadequate and incomplete, that the consultation process is not Province wide as it should be, and that, in fact, to expect the people of this Province to respond by December 18 after nine years of coming forth with a plan is an absolutely inadequate form of public consultation on an issue of provincial importance.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

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

The Draft Management Plan is a management plan that has been put in place actually with almost a decade of consultation. Since the early 1990s we have been talking, negotiating with the paper company, with Kruger Inc. We have been talking to all of the main groups, the town councils in the area. We have consulted far and wide. We have consulted on many issues, and on every issue that has been of concern, whether it is the pine marten, whether it is the old growth forest, whether it is the future of the logging industry, whether it is the protection of the outfitters, how we will in the future manage this area, which we will be doing through making a waterway provincial park all down the Main River - we will also be putting a special management area in place. We will be putting in place, after this, to make sure that this area is protected and the integrity of it is protected, a stewardship agreement with all of the concerned people and groups who are interested in the future of the Main River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How can the minister explain that after nine years there are significant blanks as to what part of the forest is going to be protected in her Draft Management Plan? This is an issue that the Minister of Environment and Labour knows that 3,000 people contacted the minister with their concerns about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Three thousand people contacted the minister with their concerns. Yet, to have a public consultation process in Pollards Point and Corner Brook, while it may be adequate for those communities, it is certainly not adequate for the rest of the Province. Why is the minister leaving the rest of us out?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should say that in order to involve the whole Province, even today, I believe, in The Telegram and in The Western Star that we have taken out a full page ad explaining the consultation process, explaining what we are proposing to the Heritage River Management Board and we are continuing to accept points of view and input from all of the provinces; as a matter of fact from anyone who is interested. We have until December 18.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report of the public tender exceptions from April to November inclusive. The hon. member now has time to put it in his stocking.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has about one minute to present a petition because this is Thursday unless we have leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I wonder if I may have leave because it might take a couple of minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking for leave to present a petition.

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A petition with respect to consumer association and class actions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking for leave to present a petition.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Premier - it is in keeping with the cover of yesterdays The Newfoundland Herald, I notice.

I present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in legislative session convened, we the undersigned resident of Newfoundland and Labrador fully support a petition of the Hiland Consumers Association in asking the Newfoundland House of Assembly to enact class action legislation in our Province;

WHEREAS this legislation already in place in other parts of Canada would permit individual citizens to band together as a group and to take their collective grievances to be adjudicated in a court of law; and

WHEREAS class action proceedings contain a no-cost or minimum-cost clause which enables ordinary citizens to initiate court action without facing the prospect of ten of thousands of dollars in legal costs, thereby putting them on a more or less equal footing with large corporations, government agencies and other organizations with virtually unlimited funding. The Hiland Consumers Association was formed in 1994 and Hiland Insurance and its agent J.J. Lacey Ltd. went into bankruptcy, leaving more than 17,000 policy holders on the hook for $10 million in lost premiums.

WHEREAS the policy holders attempted to sue to recover at least part of their losses, a court dismissed their case because there is no class action legislation in this Province. The judge also ordered the policy holders to pay legal costs of nearly $18,000 in a judgement that may have been legal but was neither fair or just; and

WHEREAS legislation is seldom, if ever, made retroactive, class action proceedings will probably come too late for Hiland policy holders but it could benefit tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians once the legislation becomes law;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the government of this Province to enact class action legislation in our Province.

Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is an important petition. We, on this side of the House, support this petition. It is a petition that supports the efforts of a consumer association, the Hiland Consumer Association, which represents the interests of some 17,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, policy holders who basically were left in the lurch as a result of the eventual bankruptcy of the insurance company and the founding company in question.

I understand that on this coming Friday this consumer group has a press conference planned. At that time they wish to make an important announcement which I think will be of interest to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Getting back to the gist of this petition, it essentially asks this government and members and ministers opposite to give serious consideration, in due course, to formulating class action legislation which would protect the consumers of the Province so that this atrocity will not occur in the future.

It is with pleasure that we present this petition, and I thank members opposite for allowing me the time to do this, despite the fact that on Private Members' Day we are gone beyond the deadline.

Thank you, Premier, and I thank members opposite.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Private Members' Day, the motion, I believe, is the one put forward by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

PREMIER TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just had an opportunity to read the private member's motion that was put forward by the Member for Ferryland. There is a point of order, and I want to get to it.

It says: that the House of Assembly call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately release the three-year plans of all the health care boards in the Province.

The truth of the matter is that there is only one three-year plan that is finished and in existence, and that is the West Coast health care plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TULK: Oh, it is true, it is a fact, I tell the hon. gentleman, and that has been released.

I want to tell him- I think that was a seven-month process - that other health care boards in the Province are now going through the process of putting together their health care plans, and as soon as they are finished -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TULK: No, absolutely, I am telling you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TULK: Look, I am in the Legislature where I am not allowed to lie. I am not lying, I say to the hon. gentleman. There is one health care plan in place in this Province, and that one was released; it is the West Coast health care plan. The others are presently in the process of being prepared by the hospital boards and so on. My government is back and forth between unions, the public, and so on. As soon as they are done, this government will release them - because you are obligated to, in the same way as you did before.

I do not want to ask the Speaker to rule this resolution out of order, but I would just say to the hon. gentleman that there is no need for a speech. There is no need to do anything. If he wants us to vote, to get us on the record that we will release them as soon as they are done, we will do it right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not to the point of order. It is on the motion, because I do not consider it a point of order at all.

The minister asked to have tabled this fall, two months ago, reports to the department by all boards, to have them submitted. There are reports coming into the department. They might be changing reports, trying to hide them for awhile, I might add, but reports that were requested and asked to be delivered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: If they are not delivered, it is incumbent upon the minister to tell us, to explain why.

PREMIER TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: The minister is not trying to hide anything. There are negotiations under way. There are talks under way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman now, I have never accused him of lying in this House. I have never accused him of hiding anything in this House. The truth is that there is one three-year plan in place. There is one three-year plan completed. That plan is the Western Health Care Corporation plan and, as he knows and everybody in the Province knows, it is public, it is released, and as soon as the rest are finished, they too will - read my lips - be released.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: The minister is not hiding one thing in this world, so let's put the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. the Premier is saying that if we have an agreement we can go to the question immediately without debate. Is there an agreement?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No agreement.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on a motion, asking government to release the three-year plans in this Province. That is the resolution. I do not intend to change it. If the Speaker wants to rule on whether that is in order, I certainly ask the Speaker to rule on that, but -

PREMIER TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman this evening: We cannot release what does not exist. It is impossible for us to release what does not exist. The only plan that exists in the Province is the Western Health Care Corporation plan.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's not what I am hearing.

PREMIER TULK: I cannot help what you are hearing. It has been released, so what is the need of the motion? What is the need of standing up and going on? If it satisfies the hon. gentleman, if he wants to go through this silliness, if he wants to go through the foolishness of taking about something that does not exist, that is fine, but we want to satisfy his mind for Christmas. We want him to go home happy. We do not want him to be upset, so if he wants the motion passed, we will vote for it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I read correctly what the Premier has said, he has not asked the Chair to rule on whether the motion is in order or not. He was asking for an agreement to vote on this immediately and we have no agreement.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I intend to exercise my right to speak on this, as a private member's resolution, if it is in order to have it debated here. If it is in order, I will exercise my right to speak on it.

I asked questions of the minister in the House recently on these plans, and how much they are being asked to cut in those plans. There are reports coming out of different parts of this Province. As late as yesterday I spoke with people indicating that one of the moves they are moving on, and it is not sitting well with probably some of the boards, is to eliminate the public ambulance service within the Central Newfoundland regional health care system, for example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am entitled to say -

PREMIER TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: The hon. gentleman is chasing an ambulance, I say to him.

Look, his resolution clearly says that there are three-year plans. Give us the evidence of where the three-years plans exist. Where? You have been told, you say, by the minister. Quote us Hansard, where the minister said the three-year plans are there and finished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we can see they are very sensitive on this issue. The minister asked -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, they do not want to discuss this issue here today because government is guilty of giving directives to boards on making cuts. They do not want to hear it today, and I am going to continue and say it anyway. The minister asked for reports to be submitted early this fall from all health care boards in the Province, and he gave an ultimatum on a day to have them submitted. He gave an ultimatum to have them submitted. In fact, he said in this House, and it was stated here even yesterday, that the deficits of boards were not considered.

The former Minister of Finance stood up, in the overall deficit - the Auditor General has indicated, and this is reflected in government statements, that when you look at the extra funding that boards got for last March, they are still $20 million in debt, in addition to the funding government gave them.

This fiscal year boards are projecting a further loss of another $39.8 million. That is $60 million, not counting other non-shareable items for the year that are factored in also. This does not include - it says: increases in severance and vacation pay which are expected to further increase the deficits. There is $60 million-plus, closing in on $100 million in deficits. The minister asked the boards to submit plans on how they are going to make up most of that shortfall. The boards were supposed to have submitted to government - government has had discussions with boards. I know some of the things being discussed.

I know some areas they are talking about, like sensitive areas in the town of Grand Falls-Windsor. I asked the President of Treasury Board: Are they looking at privatizing the ambulance service at the expense of a public system? The city of Corner Brook, for example - I raised it in the House before - there is duplication of $250,000 within the city and they have not touched certain areas of the Province. They are trying to keep this under locks over the next while. The Western Health Care Corporation released it under public pressure. Under intense public pressure they released that plan. Government said: We want you to come within your budget; the savings to come a certain distance. The money we are going to get is not going to cover all that deficit. There have to be cutbacks within that particular area.

I have asked for the release of the report on Corner Brook, the Atkinson Report that preceded that. I have been asking for two years. They would not give it, and now all of a sudden the Premier stands up and indicates that transparency and accountability - when we were months - they would not even release the three year plan for the west coast. It took a federal election -

MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Having polled the consensus of the members on this side, we are ready for the question and will vote acceptance of the premises put forward.

If I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not get bullied by the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island to try to prevent someone's democratic right to speak on motions here in this House. It is utter nonsense, delaying tactics, using up time here in the House. They do not want to hear the true story of what is happening in our system today on health care in our Province. They do not want to hear that tens of millions of dollars that are accumulated deficit, approaching $100 million at the end of this year. This government has not released it and has not released it to western health care under intense pressure. First they did not release it - and the minister knows why they did not release it initially - they released it and then the government wanted to wash their hands and say it is in the boards hands, but we know the board out there did not hold that back on their own accord, I might add. They did not hold that back on their own accord. It got released.

There are numerous cuts- I asked the minister in the House just recently, last week - the questions I asked him in the House relates to telling us how much each of those boards - what the deficit is projected to be for each of these particular boards? The Auditor General says it is $40 million, not counting vacation pay and other costs. I asked the minister, and he had a chance in Question Period last week but he would not answer the question there in the House. He is not being transparent on this particular issue.

I am not going to speak all day on this issue. I have a right in closing on this - we have just a couple of speakers who would like to speak on this, one other speaker to make her points and government is trying to hide this. You can bet your bottom dollar that we will not see this until some time in February.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: You cannot predict and have a resolution based on futuristic plans.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) they know what the deficits are in each, every single one of them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with respect to the motion which, again, we are fully willing to support. I understood that the purpose of bringing a private member's motion was to see if you could get the House of Assembly to agree with the motion. What he is being told is that every single soul on this side agrees with his motion. So I do not know why we need to talk about it a lot more. If we say we have read the motion, and we fully concur and agree - no amendments, no changes, no alterations, not even a comma to insert - we see what he has written and we agree with every single word that he has written and we are willing to vote for it.

Now, a couple of things though by commentary, because he suggests that maybe a couple of us and he, himself, may want to speak to it anyway. If they want to stay here and convince us to do something that we are already convinced to do, we will stay. We were booked to be here this afternoon until 5:00 p.m. None of us have other plans, because we take the House of Assembly seriously. We were planning on being here until 5:00 p.m. We are quite willing to stay if we need to but I really thought, having been here for a dozen years, that the process was to try to convince somebody to agree with your motion. Let me say up front, we agree, 100 per cent.

In the preamble: "WHEREAS accountability and transparency must be the hallmark of any government in this Province..." written by the hon. the Member for Ferryland. I do understand that he has taken great interest in at least my speech at the hotel a couple of weeks ago where I talked about this being the hallmark of any government. I am flattered by the fact that he would take words from my speech, a couple of weeks ago, and use them in this motion. I am flattered by that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I am glad to see that he agrees that this is the way it should be. I know there have been approaches from this member before to cross the floor and come on this side and I know that by saying this he is suggesting that he agrees with what we will do after February 2 or 3 and he is trying to weasel his way over here again, but I can tell you, we are not taking you. You are staying over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Your are not coming on this side of the House! You can start using our language if you want. You can start agreeing with us all you want. You can start saying that you believe we are doing the right things, even in your own motions but, Mr. Speaker, I think he should stick with his plan about retiring, about stepping aside and looking for other opportunities in the other party because he is not coming over here. I have checked it out. I have made the offer in this Legislature six or seven or eight times before. It is in Hansard, check Hansard. It is in Hansard where I said that I know the hon. member is serious. I know that he takes the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and health care seriously, that he wants to do something in their best interest and if he really thinks he can do this particular job - particularly Health and Community Services - better, then I offer it again.

I did have this particular group talked into agreeing that if he would come over here and implement all those plans he has put forward into the House of Assembly on behalf of every single group - like the couple of personal care homeowners who are sitting in the gallery today, who finished their meeting and are looking down because he dutifully asked the question on their behalf and promised every single thing they asked for, that he would do it if he was the minister. The same as the week before, he promised somebody else every single thing that they asked for, if he was the minister. Same as the week before, he promised somebody else every single thing that they asked for, if he was minister.

Now, they will agree - I think they will still agree, at least they did the last time I checked - that if he would come over and can actually do it, because we want something in the best interest of the people of the Province, that I would step aside. He could become the Health and Community Services minister and we would have a better Newfoundland and Labrador because we could do, hopefully, all the things that he suggested in this Legislature.

In the meantime, just crossing the floor because all of a sudden he agrees with my speech down at the hotel: that transparency should be and must be the hallmark of any government in the Province; that is off. That is not on. You are not coming over here to be part of a government that I might lead after February 2 or 3.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: You may as well go on and so something else, it is not on. It is too late for you to try and jump ship now. You had your chance. You had two or three chances. It is too late, Mr. Speaker, it is not happening.

In his comments he mentioned about the reports and mentioned that I, as the minister, have given the boards an ultimatum to have something in by the fall. He knows me personally. He has known me in this Legislature. We have known each other outside the House of Assembly, as well as inside the House of Assembly. He knows that I have never, ever given anybody an ultimatum in my whole, entire life. I have never done it because it is not the way I operate. I ask people to do some things. I suggest to them why they should do it, I might even suggest to them why it might be a good thing to do versus a bad thing, or a poor thing to do, but I do not use phrases like: Do this or else. I do not believe in intimidation tactics. I believe that if you have a good case and you make a good request people will comply with your request because they know you are trying to do something in their best interest and they will work with you. So an ultimatum is a foreign concept to me. I know in his closing remarks he will get up and suggest that he did not really mean that, that the Premier and others were getting him a bit agitated and he was getting a bit red in the face as usual. He was starting to yell a bit and he blurted out something about me and an ultimatum, which I know he will retract because he knows we do not operate that particular way.

Now with respect to the reports, there is one three-year health plan in existence in the Province. One, Mr. Speaker, and only one. It took us from January last year until the end of the summer - August month, almost eight full months - to put it in place in terms of a dialogue between the Health Care Corporation in Western Newfoundland and the Department of Health and Community Services. Mr. Speaker, because of an eight year working together relationship there is a three-year plan which is public, being discussed, and being debated in Western Newfoundland at this point in time. There are others that we are in the process of trying to develop and there are others in progress.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief point and I will give the minister leave if he wants to continue.

The CEO of the Western Health Care Corporation said there will be no public consultations on the delivery of health care because the issues are too complex for people to understand. I do not see what consultation follow up is going on there, Minister. If it is, it is going on between you and them. It is not going on in a public forum and the CEO, appointed by you - or the board appointed by you, by your department - made this statement: that the public would not understand it so we are not going to have further discussions on it. That is not a very good statement to make. I am sure the minister just said here that these consultation discussions are going on. They are not happening. If they are, they are in private, minister. That statement is published in the media.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have pointed out, and I know he will admit and will get up and say it when he does his concluding remarks on this motion that we are anxious to support. Let me get back to that point. We are anxious to support it. We can support it now at 3:30 p.m. or we can support it at 5:00 p.m. We are anxious to support it. You have convinced us that you are right. In fact, the others are going through a process.

We have gathered some information to find out what the actual budgetary circumstances, and service delivery circumstances are for the other boards, just as it took us some eight months to do in Western Newfoundland. There are discussions going on in Western Newfoundland, but they are not the kinds of charades, public shows, and useless expressions that the Opposition might like to participate in, in bringing 300 or 400 people into a gymnasium, or a hall, yelling and screaming about cutbacks in health care that do not exist because it serves the political need of the Opposition. What they are doing in Western Newfoundland is working with the community groups, working with the health boards, the health committees, in each of the regions where services are provided, and they are explaining so that people know what is in the plan instead of listening to political rhetoric from people like the PC candidate in the last federal election, who went around and tried to convince people that there were cutbacks in health care when none exist in the plan.

The one plan that is there, which does exist, which is already public, the other nine which, hopefully, will exist and which will be public - there is a commitment in one and the other nine that the government has given. The one commitment is this: the government is not interested in participating in any health care action plan, whether it be one year, two years, three years, five years, ten years, twenty years, or 100 years, that deals with reductions in medical or clinical services available to the people in a region, we are not interested. They are not there in the western plan. They do not exist, and the commitment is this: If anybody suggests or finds out or discovers that there has been a mistake made and that some clinical or health related service is actually being reduced in the western region, that part of the plan will not see the light to day and will not be implemented. That is the commitment of the government, and that has been on the public record as well.

The same instruction has been given to the other nine boards which are now going through the process. They do not have a three-year plan developed. They are trying to develop one because, for the first time, we have security of funding from the Government of Canada that allows us to talk about not one-year budget year cycles, but two- or three- or four- or five-year cycles, because we know how much money we will have from the Government of Canada for the next five years. It has given us the luxury of having three-year plans so that we can make some sensible, rational plans instead of just reacting to an Auditor General's statement and looking at a budget at the end of March and saying you have to cut something out or make an adjustment this day because a new budget year starts the very next day.

We have three-year planning cycles; they are not yet finished in the other nine boards. We are not in the possession of them, but every single board knows two things: First and foremost, and I will repeat it, the Department of Health and Community Services, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, is not interested in any three-year plan in any region of the Province that reduces clinical or medical health related services. They need not send them in; they will be rejected. It is not going to happen.

The second thing they do know is that when those reports come to the government, and if the government signs off and there is an agreement on a three-year plan for the other boards, they will become public documents, just as this particular motion says. That is why I will say again, in conclusion, that we have no hesitation in supporting this motion right this very minute because we do believe in it and we do agree with it.

One last comment: While we are not interested, not at all interested, in any reduction of clinical or medical related services, we are interested - and I am surprised that the hon. member did not put it in his motion, because it is in Hansard already - we are interested in having them go through a process that tries to identify some of the $100 million that is currently being wasted in the health care system of Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the hon. Member for Ferryland. It is in Hansard; it is on the record. He has said repeatedly for the public record and the record of this House that he believes there is $100 million, at least, being wasted - those are his words - in the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is in Hansard. You know where it is.

MR. SULLIVAN: Find it!

MR. GRIMES: He knows where it is. I passed it over to him before. I have highlighted it for him. I have sent it to his office. I have given it to him in person. He has read it himself, and he is going to try his very best to pretend that he did not say it, but he has said it. Otherwise, he would be on his feet right now; but he is not on his feet because he knows the truth.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland .

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, imputing motives, what I know and think - but if I said it, and it is in Hansard, I would like for him to tell us where the reference is in Hansard. It is as simple as that. The proof of the pudding, I would say, is in the eating.

He should not be making innuendos on hundreds of millions of dollars without substantiation for it. I told him this morning in Question Period how he is going to get almost $10 million in savings, and he did not listen. He said I was grandstanding. He does not want to hear solutions to the health care system. He does not want to hear them. He is half afraid we might tell him how it is done right, but he wants to find that out for himself probably in another few months.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, it is in the Hansard of March 18, 1999, on page 60. The hon. the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Sullivan.... It says: ...because I can tell you that $100 million will not fix health care in this Province because of the way it is structured and the way the money is wasted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I passed it over to him before and gladly pass it over to him again, because he knows it is the truth and he cannot deny it. He knows that is the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I point out this. We are interested, and I know he is serious and he is interested in having the boards - if he were the minister, he would want the boards to look for that $100 million in waste. We have asked him to look to see if there is $100 million in waste, or even $1 million, because nobody wants to waste.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I say that we will gladly support the motion because we do believe it is the right thing to do, to give the reports and make them public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand in support of my colleague for Ferryland and to say a few words on this private member's resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Does the Member for Twillingate & Fogo want to get up and make a few comments on the private member's bill? Go ahead.

I am surprised at the response from the other side of the House, to be honest with you. We are here with a private member's motion on the floor. Private Members' Day is an opportunity to get up and debate an issue. We have debated issues here before, that all members on both sides of the House agreed on at the end of the day, but we still had the opportunity to get up and debate the concerns and the issues.

If the other side of the House of Assembly, including the minister himself, does not think that debating and discussing the health care issues in Newfoundland and Labrador are important, I would say we have a major problem right at the top itself. We have very important issues here.

If anybody thinks that money is not being wasted, all we have to do is look at the report out yesterday to understand where millions of dollars are not only wasted - I am just giving a conclusion on the hospital boards in the Province, right from the Auditor General's report yesterday, "The financial position of the eight hospital boards is continuing to weaken despite the injection of deficit reduction funding. In 1998-99, the Province provided the boards with $48.4 million to reduce cumulative deficits to 31 March 1999. In 1999-00, the Province provided an additional $31.3 million in stabilization funding comprised of $17.4 million in base budget stabilization funding and $13.9 million in one-time stabilization funding."

Here we have boards that are all in a deficit situation, that all have problems out there. We know, on this side of the House, that the minister has reports from these different boards across the Province. We know, on this side of the House, that the minister is making plans, is discussing plans on ways of saving this money. We know, on this side of the House, that the minister has plans in place that he has gone out and discussed with the hospital boards in the Province, that he has discussed with the health and community services boards. We know the minister has plans. We are fully aware of some of these plans. That is why we are asking here today that these reports be put on the table today. We know that the minister has the reports.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's on Monday afternoon. He stood for one hour on the Interim Supply debate and spoke of nothing only the leadership contenders on this side, and who might or might not be going in Cabinet.

Today, he is talking about reports that the Premier has stated categorically do not exist, and that once these reports are written, and once these reports have been reviewed by government, they will be released to the public.

Again, the member opposite does not know what he is talking about. We are sitting here this afternoon, talking and debating about reports that do not exist; another waste of time like earlier in the week when he spent a full hour here talking about the leadership contenders on this side of the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I was speaking on the Highway Traffic Act, not the supply act, so you should get your facts straight.

All that is wrong with the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is that I did not tell him what position he was going to have in the next government - the position he wanted to have, I should say - but he need not worry because Danny Dumersque is not putting you in Cabinet. Danny Dumaresque is not putting you in Cabinet!

If I could get back to the concern that has been raised here today by the Member for Ferryland, we have a major concern in the Province with hospital boards, deficit situations, and plans that are being made today, as we stand here in the House of Assembly, to cut some of the services, to save some of this money, and to try to improve the health care system. We do not have a problem with trying to improve the health care system.

The Member for Ferryland has been on his feet here time and time again in this House, over the past number of years, putting forward ideas and suggestions to the different ministers of health on how to improve that system. They have not listened to him, and they should have listened to him. Maybe we would not have the deficit problem we have today.

We have concerns here because we know full well, number one, that the hospital boards are appointed by the minister, are put in place by the minister. We have the health and community services boards that are put in place by the minister, they are at the arm of the minister, therefore they have to answer to the minister when they are appointed. Then we have the minister standing on his feet in the House of Assembly and saying, point blank, that we don't have the reports in. We are saying, yes, there are reports in. The minister has many concerns that have been raised over the past couple of years by the hospital boards and the health and community services boards in relation to ways of improving the service. What we are asking here today is to give us time - not only on this side of the House but indeed throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - to have a look at those reports so then we can go out and let the people know, and the people in the Province would know what the plans are for the different areas of the Province, how health care is going to be delivered to the different areas of the Province over the next couple of years, and that they would have an opportunity to partake in discussions in relation to what the plans are.

That is the number one idea that we are trying to put across. The problem we have with it, number one, is that they are saying there is no report; number two, we have a report that was released - as the minister just touched on, from the Western Health Care Board - not because all the discussions were over, not because everybody agreed on it, not because everybody had agreed on the conclusions of the report. The report on the Western Health Care Board was released because of the pressure during the federal election. That is why the report on the West Coast was released, because of the pressure that was put on the Liberal candidate in the district, and the Liberal government, during the federal election to release that report. That is why we have the report. Then, we had the CEO of the Western Health Care Board come out, as has been touched on earlier, and say that we are not going to consult with the general public. We are going to talk to the minister, we are going to talk to the different members on the health care boards, we are going to talk to the hospitals, but we are not going to consult with the people who are in here trying to find out and trying to determine what way the health care is going to be provided in the Province.

We have the CEO of the Western Health Care Board saying, we cannot consult. Why we cannot consult - it is in the media - is because the public would not understand it. The public would not understand it; therefore we cannot consult. That is why we came here today and said: Let's get out these reports, the reports that the minister has, put them on the table, get them out to the public so the public can get an opportunity to look at what the plans are for the delivery of health care in the Province over the next couple of years, so they can have an opportunity to voice their opinions, because the number one concern of most people in the Province is health care. That is why the Member for Ferryland, being the very capable critic that he has been here in the past number of years, has put forward the concerns of the people of the Province, and it is no different with this concern.

We have members of the hospital boards who are appointed by the minister, coming back, giving us the idea, giving us the plans, letting us know what some of the plans are for the delivery of health care in the Province over the next couple of years. That has raised major concerns not only with the critic but indeed with people throughout the medical profession here in the Province. That is why we figure, if he had the reports that the minister has today, we would have the opportunity to have some more consultation in the Province and certainly an opportunity, if nothing else, to prepare some suggestions, to put forward some suggestions and ideas to the minister that he can then bring forward and maybe bring in some cohesive policy that would benefit every person in the Province.

There is no doubt about it; we have major concerns in health care in the Province. We have a back-up for cardiac surgery, we have hospital bed closures, we have nurses who are leaving the Province, and so on. All of these health care concerns - are they all a part of this report? Are there going to be layoffs in the different parts of the health profession? All these concerns that we have here as members on this side of the House, and the general public had and continue to have. All you have to do is follow the media on a day-to-day basis and we see the concerns that are being raised here. So, that is why we came forward today with this Private Member's resolution.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in cluing up my remarks, that I am very surprised with the response of the Premier today, to think that just because everybody agrees with a Private Member's resolution that has been brought forward that we would be denied, in any way, shape or form, the opportunity to stand on our feet and discuss the concerns in the Province as it relates to this issue. I am sure everybody in the House realizes that the health care issues are number one in the Province and this is an opportunity to debate them. So I am very concerned with the fact that the Premier and the Minister of Health are on their feet today questioning whether we should even be debating health care in this House of Assembly, whether we should be debating the concern that there are reports on the minister's desk, and that the general public has the right to know and, not as the CEO of the Western Health Care Board says, that the people cannot consult on it because they would not understand it. I think the people in this Province fully understand the crisis that is in health care in this Province, fully understand that we have major waste in the system, fully understand that we have, in a lot of cases, suggestions that have been put forward to the minister that are not being listened to that is why the Private Member's resolution is on the floor today.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a very brief minute to clue up. I already made the particular point that every single health care board in this Province were asked to submit plans to the department and there have been preparations done. There have been interim reports. They can call it what they like, there is work to be done. I have spoken with people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. We did not even get the plan for West until weeks and weeks, months after. We could not get the Atkinson Report for two years. That minister and that minister and the one before said they were going to release it several times. I have it in my office, noted in public where in the media it was said, where in the House it was said. We have all the statements. The public, with the election going on and the big issue out on the West Coast - it was forced to release it. That is what happened.

So, the point I am making here today is that the minister should be out reprimanding the CEO of the Western Health Care Corporation who is saying he is not going to have public consultations on it, it is too complicated. He said it is too complicated for the public to understand it. The minister, as the department responsible, should be out ordering boards to hold public consultations to hear what the people in the Province, under their jurisdiction, want. It is they who are the recipients of health care. They are the ones who should have a say.

We do have it established by boards, by their statements coming to this department - and the minister knows as well as I do that the statements came, his department has shown. The financial statements: they were $20 million in hock at the end of last year or the year before, another estimated $39.8 million, not counting applying other factors to it, in the case of paying severance and things like that. They are going up close to $100 million. It is well beyond the $60 million documented and others not even applied to it. It is a very serious problem and the minister knows as well as I do what every board in this Province is projecting they cannot meet.

The question asked was: come back with your plan, show us what you can realize. All the money we get from federal will not cover all that shortfall. It can only cover some. You have to get savings in the system. What did they get when they laid off ninety-eight. They said, we called it attrition. Call it what you like. There are ninety-eight less people working in health care when this was implemented in the Western Health Care Corporation than there are today; forty-eight less nurses working in the system. There are 1,300 less beds since 1989 in this Province. There are 1,807 beds in this Province today. There were 3,100 back in 1989. There are doctors leaving this Province because they cannot get to do the surgeries and serve their patients and get their fees for doing so. It is causing an out-migration of doctors.

If anybody read the newspaper today, how many are going to return in the next five years, the number is astonishing, what we are going to need to field just on people retiring. On top of that, skilled dermatologists - a year to get an appointment with a dermatologists - left this Province this year. Psychiatrists left at the Janeway recently. There are only three there now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are leaving in Ontario, they are leaving in BC. It is not only here.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are. I will expand on that, I will tell you where they are going. People today are leaving this Province and they are going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished.

Patients are leaving this Province and going to Halifax, because I get calls every day, and if they get a referral for a specialist they say, I cannot do your knee surgery here or I cannot do this surgery here. They are going to Nova Scotia, if they get referred. The medical costs are covered by this Province, their transportation is under the transportation assistance plan, and they are getting done in three or four weeks. I have names. People are going to Halifax. Halifax is becoming a regional cardiac centre because we do not have the nurses, we do not have the beds open, and the doctors cannot get to do their patients.

It is happening in orthopaedics, it is happening in cardiac surgery, it is happening in every aspect. They are so frustrated! They cannot achieve an income now. It is affecting them because they cannot serve their patients for several months. I spoke to a doctor who said: I will pass on records to Halifax because I cannot get any time and operating space to do them for six or eight months. They can get it done up there in a month, and people are leaving.

We are facing a crisis because the age is one factor and because we are not competitive and because the U.S. is more competitive. The U.S. is drawing them from other parts of Canada and because we are so much below - a psychiatrist left here recently to be paid $40,000 more in Ontario. Because they are moving south, it creates a bigger problem for us, because then they are moving from here to Nova Scotia, which is closer, and Ontario and other parts of Canada to fill the voids left by other doctors moving south because they are paid a lot more.

It is a major problem. It is a major significant problem when we have hundreds of beds, 1,300 closed since 1989, when we have long lineups, people cannot get in to get regular surgery. Some is very serious surgery. A woman dropped dead on her living room floor because she had to wait four to six weeks. She was urgent, she had to get done and after four weeks she dropped dead on her floor because she could not get that by-pass. This is very serious and it is happening, not only in life-threatening areas, but it is happening in other areas, where people are suffering in agony from arthritis and other areas, replacements and so on, whether it is hip, knee or anything else.

I deal with dozens I have documented. At least every two or three months - I keep the last three months there, I count up to 200 and then I shift them off into a file and keep them current. I am going through this every day. It is so frustrating that people cannot get medical help out there today. I really think the system is not a very well-managed system.

The minister tried to steal a few words there, but I can tell you, you would be amazed at the dollars-inefficient system. I cannot figure out why - and I will close with this point - you would keep hundreds of people in a nursing home, with Level I and Level II care, when you can get it for less than $1,000 a month and you will pay $3,000 to keep them in a nursing home. I am not talking about the people who went in there and you do not want to move them out. I see that we have to let that flow through the system but they are still bringing people in that are Level I and Level II, when there is a 50 per cent vacancy out in a personal care home and 25 per cent vacancy and they are on the edge of bankruptcy. They have loans based upon a subsidy that was given and now they are being thrown to the wolves. It is a very serious problem in our health care system.

I have lots of recommendations and suggestions I have made. I feel we must be fiscally responsible. We cannot throw money out, just all over. There has to be a rational decision based on finance. I have never suggested anything without a fiscal responsibility to it. I do not do it in my personal life I spent in business without incurring any deficits in any particular years. I believe strongly in having a wise use of our resources. I do not see why government should not be more receptive to looking at suggestions that can help it. If my suggestions are not valid I would like to know why. I would like an explanation to tell me why they are not and see the counter-argument. I have not heard that. I have not heard it at all. In many incidents that I have related here, in the system, I think we need to do something about that. I want to see an improved system.

I often get tired of the same basic problems and nothing getting done. It is pretty frustrating. I am sure the minister might hear it too, but something has to be done. There are ways to streamline it. There are ways to deliver it more efficiently out there. I think we have to do something about it and it is not getting done. I think one of the ways - we do have to have accountability. We do have to have public consultation. I do not like the idea of people out there saying - I hope the minister has reprimanded him. If he has not, I think he should. If he wants to know who told you, well I told you that you should reprimand him. You feel guilty yourself because we should not have a CEO -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it might do nothing at all but at least I will stated it, that he should be reprimanded for telling us that it is too complicated for the public to understand and they should not have public consultations on how people's health care should be looked after. Now that is affront to intelligent people here in our Province who can make decisions. There are a lot of good people making decisions. Maybe the big problem is there are too many people making decisions, who are a lot less equipped and less qualified than people out there. They are out there in everybody's district.

I am sure the minister, if he gets his hands on that big seat over there, he will do something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Out of whose?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, yours.

I am feeling sick, I want help and I am going to conclude this debate.

I will just finish on a light remark. I really think the minister is starting to lobby now to get her old job back when he moves over a couple of seats in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

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

I declare the motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the House do now adjourn until Thursday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.