May 2, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 19


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the gallery today thirty-four Grade VII students from Dunne Memorial Academy in St. Mary's. They are accompanied by their teachers, Marjorie Gibbons and Janice Butland; teacher's aid, Priscilla Tobin; and a parent, Marcella Fleming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend birthday greetings to an individual in this House who has certainly served well, who has served the government well, and is really known, I guess, for his long and complete answers. I want to say, from this side of the House, that we want to extend a Happy 50th Birthday to none other than the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, the hon. Roger Grimes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is Yom ha'Shoah, translated Holocaust Memorial Day, according to the Jewish calendar. Throughout the world, Jewish communities are mourning the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews as well as many other ethnic and religious groups. Throughout the day there are memorial services and educational programs. This date is chosen as it marks the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943.

Sunday past, I attended the Holocaust service of the Hebrew Congregation of Newfoundland and Labrador. The community holds this service on the Sunday closest to the actual day, and during the service relatives of community members were publicly remembered and experiences were recounted.

This day serves as a reminder that each and every one of us has a duty to combat racial discrimination and bigotry and to ensure that all our citizens enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms which we so often take for granted in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize one of the driving forces behind the Eagle River Credit Union, Mr. Stan Pike, Senior. Mr. Pike was recently presented with the Wilf Dawe Award, which recognizes continuous, dedicated service to the credit union system as well as involvement in other areas.

Mr. Pike was among a handful of people who worked together to establish a financial institution in the Labrador Straits area when the local bank in L'Anse au Loup was closed in 1984. He contributed a great deal to the development and success of the Eagle River Credit Union, in its early years, serving on the first Board of Directors for almost eleven years.

Mr. Speaker, Stan Pike has been a tireless promoter of the Labrador Straits region, serving on the Labrador Straits Tourism Association, the local Chamber of Commerce, as well as playing an important role in the formation of the Red Bay Council, serving as Chairman, Deputy Mayor and Mayor.

Even though Mr. Pike is now retired, he is still working hard as the owner of a small business supplies store and gas station and is still involved with the Labrador Straits Chamber of Commerce. I congratulate him today on receiving the Wilf Dawe award and wish him all the best in the future.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, today the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board issued revised estimates of our offshore petroleum resources and discovered resources. These revised estimates are very positive and, in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Energy, I wish to share the Board's estimates with all hon. members.

Significant additional drilling has occurred in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin since the C-NOPB last updated its resources and they include fourteen development wells at Hibernia since 1997; a new oil discovery at West Bonne Bay in 1998; three successful delineation wells drilled at White Rose in 1999; and two delineation wells drilled on the Hebron-Ben Nevis Complex in 1999.

Following a comprehensive review, the C-NOPB advises that the total estimated oil and gas reserves and discovered resources in the offshore area have increased substantially as follows: the total discovered oil resources and reserves estimate has gone from 1.6 billion to 2 billion barrels; the total discovered natural gas resource estimate has gone from 8.2 to 9.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; and the total discovered natural gas liquids estimate has gone from 360 million to 413 million barrels.

Mr. Speaker, some 526 million barrels of additional recoverable oil; just over 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 53 million barrels of natural gas liquids have been added to the Newfoundland and Labrador petroleum reserves and resources inventory.

The revised C-NOPB estimates reflect changes in three major fields as follows: In Hibernia, with respect to oil, we have gone from 666 million barrels to 884 million barrels; in gas, from 1 trillion cubic feet to 1.4 trillion cubic feet; and in gas liquids from 111 million barrels to 145 million barrels.

With respect to While Rose, the increase in oil is from 178 million barrels to 275 million barrels; in gas, from 1.5 trillion cubic feet to 2.1 trillion cubic feet; and in gas liquids, from 58 million barrels to 77 million barrels.

In Hebron, with respect to oil, it has been revised from 195 million barrels to 325 million barrels.

Mr. Speaker, these upward revisions are very significant and serve to cement Newfoundland and Labrador's position as a major player in the international oil and gas industry.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed extremely good news today. The natural endowments that our Province has - because of who we are, the geography of the place we live in - means we have such significant opportunities before us. When you look at the increase in Hibernia, for example, in the amount of barrels of oil alone, it certainly says that the original Hibernia agreement will bring hundreds - and I repeat, hundreds - of millions of dollars of extra revenue into the Province that was not previously there.

While it serves to cement our position within the international oil and gas industry, what is really required, and what is essential from government's point of view, what is in their control that will further cement our position to take fuller advantage, is to begin to further implement the provisions of the Atlantic Accord. To ensure, for example, that the drilling modules that were shipped out of Marystown, $120 million worth of work, does not happen again; to ensure that the $120 million mechanical outfitting contract that we lost does not happen again; to ensure that jobs that went to Leatherhead, England because this government didn't respond to enforce the provisions of the Atlantic Accord does not happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the $400 million worth of procurement activities that could have produced jobs and benefits for this Province does not happen again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: What will further cement the industry is this government standing up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and taking fuller advantage of opportunities from the oil and gas industry!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed good news. I guess we can look at the oil and gas reserves off our coast as a maturing industry. I think it is important, now that we can say that, that we, as a province, and incumbent upon this government, to make sure that the real benefits flow to the people of this Province in terms of secondary processing of the oil and gas reserves, of creating the industries onshore that would provide good employment opportunities for the people of the Province in high paying jobs.

I think that the royalty regime that is in place has to be reviewed to make sure that the people of this Province rightfully get what is theirs in terms of employment and royalties from the resources that we have in this Province.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, today I am announcing funding to a project - albeit small, but very interesting - aimed at encouraging young women to seek careers in the mining industry.

The Department of Human Resources and Employment is investing $34,000 in the development of a high school credit program that will educate young women about the mining industry. Based at Menihek High School in Labrador City, the curriculum will feature on-site training, summer internships, and a mentoring program. The program is being developed by the local chapter of the Women in Trades and Technology Organization.

This program will break down some of the fears and barriers facing young women who feel they cannot work in the mining environment. Women in Trades and Technology will develop the curriculum over the next year, with input from the Department of Education. They plan to offer the course in September 2001.

It is important to educate young women about the kinds of careers opportunities that are there in the trades and technologies.

About 17 per cent of students in engineering technology programs in the public college system are women, while women account for less than 10 per cent of the students enrolled in trade programs.

The mining technology for women program will position students to take advantage of an industry that will need employees in the near future. It is estimated that the Iron Ore Company of Canada will need over 500 employees by 2003, when many workers will be eligible for early retirement.

There is significant growth in the resource sector, yet women's involvement in Hibernia, for example, was just 4 per cent during the construction phase. Now, in the production phase, women make up only about 5 per cent of the workforce employed on the rig.

We need to encourage young women to pursue careers where they have been traditionally under represented. It's a way to help close the wage gap that exists between men and women.

The new program also speaks to the themes contained in our Jobs and Growth consultations, and in the Strategic Social Plan. Preparing youth for jobs in their communities is key to ensuring the Province's future economic success.

Young women who complete the course will be able to take advantage of post-secondary programs in mining technology, such as the newly created Maintenance Operator Program, run through the College of the North Atlantic.

I hope everyone shares in my enthusiasm over this latest initiative. I look forward to keeping people updated on the success of the program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly support the initiative there and it is encouraging to see it probably start in an area, at Menihek High School, that is in the heart of a mining town. I think it is an appropriate place to start.

Any program that is going to entice women to move from traditional fields of employment into engineering technology, into the growth market and jobs of the future, is very encouraging. To see some equity in those particular fields is very enticing, particularly for young students at the high school age where a lot of their opinions become formulated and what they want to do in life, a significant percentage of both happening in the last year of high school.

So it is encouraging to see initiative here. Hopefully, it will successful. It can be expanded in some other areas or parts of the College of the North Atlantic in other areas of the Province that have mining based resource economies that might encourage other people to expand on this particular program.

We certainly support that. We think it is a step forward in getting some equity in some non-traditional fields where women have not traditionally worked.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I congratulate the minister on this initiative. I would like to point out that Friday night past I was at a retirement party held by the Iron Ore Company of Canada and the Steelworkers Union in which there were a number of women workers who retired during the past couple of months. I am proud to say that we have had some of the first female mechanics, machinists, and welders employed in the mining industry, going back some twenty-odd years.

The program that is on the go presently, the Employee of the Future, for the job opportunities that the minister has indicated in this statement, there are approximately 30 per cent females currently enroled in that program.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we concentrate on getting women into non-traditional jobs and certainly we have played an active role in that in Labrador West. We look forward to playing a greater role in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In recent months there has been increasing interest in genetic research occurring in Newfoundland and Labrador. Accordingly, I would like to take this opportunity to inform hon. members of the status of genetic research in the Province.

The Province's population has descended from approximately 20,000 people who originally settled in Newfoundland in the 1800s. Because immigration to the Province has been limited since the first settlement, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are descended almost exclusively from this original group of settlers. From a practical perspective, it is easier to find and trace diseases when there are a limited number of genes or families affecting the gene pool. Since this is clearly the case in our Province, there is increasing interest in conducting genetic research here.

There has been extensive genetic research done on some diseases by investigators at Memorial University, namely cancers and heart conditions that exist in the Province. These investigators are bound by strict guidelines for the ethical conduct of human research.

There has also been some research done by other individuals and companies coming into the Province and studying the DNA of certain families. Some of these have done so without following up with these families as to the outcomes of the studies. For this reason in particular, it is important that the Province move forward with policies and standards regarding all genetic research in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Community Services retained Dr. Verna Skanes, retired Assistant Dean of Research and Graduate Studies at the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University, to prepare a report on issues arising from the commercialization of human genetics research. It should be noted that Dr. Skanes is also a member of the Standing Committee on Ethics of the Medical Research Council of Canada. Today, I have requested Dr. Skanes to release this report to our key stakeholders for their input and further discussion. It is also available to any interested person or party upon request. The report is part of government's process of gathering information and identifying relevant issues such as research ethics, legal protection for the research participants, informed consent, and privacy and confidentiality issues. These will need to be explored further in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, Dr. Skanes' report will provide for all of us a sense of the issues that will be dealt with, including, for example, the establishment of a provincial research ethics board.

It is our plan to put in place policies and standards around genetic research later in this year. In doing this, we will review the experiences of other jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere in the world, particularly countries like Iceland which has similar descendant patterns. We will also examine the policies governing the Human Genome project being carried out in Canada and throughout the world.

The Province has also appointed Ms Beverley Clarke, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Policy and Program Services Branch of the Health and Community Services Department, as our representative to the national committee being established by Health Canada to examine genetic research issues across this country.

I will keep hon. colleagues up to date as matters progress on this subject.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly support genetic research, but there have to be certain fundamental guidelines and ethics adhered to. Traditionally, I think, up to now, we have mostly dealt with single gene disorders. We are moving quickly into the field now where we get more complex genetic disorders that involve more than a single, isolated area.

We are seeing in particular, too, where traditionally the academic community has been prominent in this particular research. They follow a tri-council policy that has been established there, and follow certain basic ethics. When we get into non-academic communities and privately-paid-for research in all these areas, it is important to move quickly. That is why this particular report - I didn't get a chance to read it yet. I just received it before coming into the House, but it does make a recommendation that the Department of Health take leadership and establish, as soon as possible, a provincial research ethics board.

I know the process is started but it can't move quickly enough, I might say, because funding for research now - in particular, we are in a unique area and we want to be as cooperative as possible in identifying and eliminating probably future medical expenses coming from research; because that is maybe where the key is going to lie in reducing health care costs in the long term by looking at the genetic aspect, the associated families, and the provincial aspect is very important.

It is important also, and is identified here too, to have certain sound, basic ethics that are going to guide it for the privacy of individuals on information and also not crossing any particular boarders that would go beyond the midpoint on professional ethics. That is important. Hopefully, some people will move quickly on this to ensure that we have something in place that will lay down those guidelines to ensure that we keep within acceptable standards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to commend the minister for moving quickly to have this report prepared on this most urgent issue, I would submit, and also making available for discussion the recommendations of Dr. Verna Skanes, who has canvassed the issues quite admirably.

It is a matter of some urgency because we do have probably faster action in this Province than anywhere else in Canada on this issue because of the nature of the gene pool and the interest in Newfoundland research. I would recommend that the government, on an interim basis, require all research to be vetted by the existing ethics boards at Memorial University before - it will take some time to go through the process of setting up a new board. It is of some urgency. It is an area where there is a lot of misunderstanding, as was seen by a recent article in The Guardian, referring to Newfoundlanders as being inbred, congenital defects, and all sorts of negative comments like that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I urge the government to move quickly to make sure that any efforts in that regard are tightly controlled and watched by this government

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Acting Minister of Mines and Energy. It is interesting that, prior to the House closing for the Easter break, I tabled information in this House of joint studies between the federal and provincial governments related to the transmission line. Nobody - the Minister of Energy at the time didn't know what the documents were, didn't know where we got them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It was either Chuck or Roger. The birthday boy is going to get a chance to respond today. He did this morning.

They didn't know what it was. They were saying: Send over the information; we don't know what it is. Now, lo and behold, we have gotten more information.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to get to it, I say to the Government House Leader.

On Friday, the Minister of Mines and Energy released a press release saying: An unidentified third party has gotten information, and we have just received it.

The unidentified third party is me, and they know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: This morning, the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a radio program, said: We have just gotten information that could provide some insight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: In a respond to his interview, he said: We have just gotten some information that could provide some insight and help us bridge the impasse between us.

I would like to ask the minister this: Would any more letters written by me to the federal government get more information for you, to help you bridge the impasse?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can just suggest that I do appreciate the birthday greeting, and I hope to get to wish the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a happy birthday on his special day as well. In fact, anything that the Opposition can do constructively to help on any issue is always welcomed by the government, and we appreciate the intervention in this particular case.

We quite frankly would agree with the Opposition that the ideal circumstance here as we sometimes do some banter with respect to political cousins in other political arenas, our cousins being the first cousins in Ottawa, they being the first party in Ottawa, we being the first party here, their own cousins being the fifth cousins in Ottawa because they are the fifth party in Ottawa, they are not as well matched as we are because we are first and first and they are second and fifth so maybe they don't know what they are.

It has been helpful. The ideal resolution would have been for the Government of Canada - as we would have seen it - to just say yes to us the first day we asked them for $2 billion to build an in-feed to Newfoundland and Labrador. We would have been delighted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: They have taken their role as the Government of Canada seriously. They have challenged positions put forward by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have taken outside advice and gotten reports.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: In all cases we still don't know why they are resisting some of our overtures on this particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask: Isn't it a fact, Minister, that what you are trying to do right now is spin the public, through the media, that this is the first time that they have received this information? Prior to Easter, they didn't get it and they didn't know what we were talking about. Now that we have the information, they are trying to get out ahead and say: We are trying to work with the federal government.

The logic of it, that the Minister of Mines and Energy and the government cannot get information where the Leader of the Opposition can, you would think -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister: Do you really believe that the people of this Province are so gullible as to swallow that, hook, line and sinker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I guess it depends on the characterization of the information and the issue. We are not trying to suggest anything to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, other than that it is a fact, and it remains a fact, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador made a request to the Government of Canada to assist us financially so that we could build an in-feed from Labrador to the Island to bring cheap, efficient, clean and environmentally friendly hydroelectric power to the Province to meet the future hydroelectric needs and energy needs of the Island from a project that we are hoping to develop in Labrador, together with our partners in Quebec.

There is a considerable cost - it is $2 billion - and unless somebody helps us with the cost, the issues that the Opposition raise that the price of electricity, the cost of electricity to consumers in the Province could increase significantly and drastically if the consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador have to bear the cost of a $2 billion in-feed, so we have been asking for assistance. The Government of Canada has been challenging our assumptions. They have gotten their own studies. We have been in a full, detailed, joint discussion with them. We have presented all kinds of information, some of which they have accepted, some of which they have challenged. We have not seen all of the information (inaudible). We haven't even asked for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: We just presented our case. They have gone and examined and challenged our case. We are still hoping that the answer would be - and I am sure the Opposition would agree; they hope the answer is - that the Government of Canada says: Despite our misgivings, despite the research that we have done, we will give you the money anyway -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - but that has not been the case so far. We hope for a successful conclusion at a later date, Mr .Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to now take his seat.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't it a fact, Minister, that all of the information that government has just received, that they were briefed on several months ago, contained right within the information released, there is a diagram of the federal-provincial structure for the working committee: Provincial Chair, A. Noseworthy, co-ordinator, R. Edwards, transmission line and alternatives, macro economic benefits, climate change, environmental, Aboriginal and fishery related issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Isn't it a fact that the information that you received, that you are now saying that you have not seen before, that you have been fully briefed, that the federal government has said no to you, and the only difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that you have not gone before the people of the Province and told them the truth on this issue? Isn't that what is really going on, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. It just seems pretty obvious today again that the Leader of the Opposition desperately would like for this negotiation to fail so that he could suggest that there is not going to be an in-feed and that somehow it is our fault instead of somebody else's fault.

The fact of the matter again is that this has been a joint working negotiation; however, even though it was agreed that the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would engage jointly in this discussion as to whether or not an in-feed was feasible, how it compared to any other sources of energy on the Island, rather than the in-feed, and whether or not they are going to participate financially, despite the fact that we were doing it jointly, as that chart shows, they decided to get independent advice, the same as we do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, even though they are into a joint process, on certain of our assumptions and certain of our requests. Some of that information, which is what I said yesterday, we have not seen in detail.

The issues we know in detail, all of them, because we have been working at them jointly together; but I can say by the same token that there are certain pieces of information and certain studies that this government has that we have not shared fully with the Government of Canada because they are issues that we are dealing with, with our partner in the project in Labrador, which is the Government of Quebec. So it is not that we have never seen this information. We have, in fact, seen most of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: We have discussed and have been negotiating together and jointly, all of the issues, but there is certain information in the 1,000 pages that representatives in Newfoundland and Labrador have never seen before, are looking at it. If the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to suggest, as he did at the beginning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: - that he should take some credit for getting it for us, thank you for getting us the information.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was the former Minister of Mines and Energy. He knows what the process is like. They have had this information for over a year. When a request is written, either from here or by a member of the public, the provincial ministry and the government are given a heads-up several months in advance. As a matter of fact, most of what is contained in that 1,000 pages, the blanks that have been left out, has been at the request of the provincial government, that all the information that we have asked for not be there. Isn't that a fact, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am at a bit of a loss as to what the issue is. Let me describe it again, for clearer understanding for all of us. We have been involved in a joint study - the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - with respect to whether or not an in-feed from Labrador to the Island is a viable alternative, and whether or not it can be used to deliver electric energy to the Province without costing the consumers on the Island an arm and a leg, and causing prices for electric energy in the Island part of the Province to escalate, which I am sure, rightfully so, the Opposition would condemn.

I believe again that maybe they have their fingers crossed, hoping that this whole thing just doesn't work. I really thought that they were hoping it would work because it would be in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they would hope that the whole thing will collapse and they are just more interested in then being able to say: Well, we can point the finger at this group of Liberals or that group of Liberals, whether they be basically in the capital city in Newfoundland and Labrador or the capital city in Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: That seems to be more of their interest than looking at whether or not this is going to be a successful negotiation.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. In the last several months, if you asked this minister a question on the transmission line, you get one answer. If you ask the present Minister of Mines and Energy a question on the transmission line, you get another answer. If you ask the former, former, Minister of Mines and Energy a question on the transmission line, you get another answer.

I would like to ask him this question. Seeing that he is into the blame game now and accusing the Opposition of trying to kill the project, could he answer me this question: Why is it, before the studies are finished, that your own Premier came out in January and said the transmission line is not necessary anymore because we now believe that a natural gas pipeline is the best way to go? Isn't he the one, and the government the one, that has killed this project before anyone has had a chance for this study to be completed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter again is this: The Leader of the Opposition tries to put his interpretation on what the Premier has said with respect to the in-feed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The Premier has clearly tried to point out for the people of the Province that if, in fact, there is no in-feed we shouldn't consider that to be an absolute disaster and the end of the world because there are other opportunities. The fact of the matter is this: After the big rallying call at the Progressive Conservative Annual Convention where they brought back not the ghost but the real, live, Brian Peckford to re-energize them, they came out of it flaming, fired up again. Remember, one of the issues was that if there is not going to be an in-feed, that party, without an in-feed, will be against the whole project, period, against the whole thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: That, unless there is an in-feed, there should be no development in Labrador, period, whether it makes any sense or not. In that context, the Premier clearly pointed out that if, unfortunately, there is to be no in-feed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: - it is not the end of the world, there is a still a good project that can be done, and there are still other available sources for us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister was a fertilizer, Masterfeeds, I don't know if we would call him bittersweet or sweet feed, because what he is getting on with amounts only to that.

Was he at the Liberal fundraising dinner in January when the Prime Minister and the Premier stood before the cameras and both said: We are not sure that a transmission line is now the best option because natural gas pipeline would be better. Was he there when his boss and his federal boss said that? Yes or no?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell him where I wasn't. I was not at the PC rallying convention where they brought back Brian Peckford -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - who suggested to them - the only thing that he didn't suggest out of his re-hash of ten years in Newfoundland and Labrador, Brian Peckford did not suggest again that they should do another Sprung greenhouse. Everything else that Mr. Peckford did - I have a great deal of respect for the man, personally. Anyone who can become Premier of the Province, I have a great deal of respect for them. I know him personally. I always disagreed with a lot of his public policies, but just about everything that he did, including the black arm band day where we lost in the courts again over Labrador power, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: It was great for political rhetoric but left the Province with no development, none whatsoever, and left us, when the government changed in 1989, with almost a totally bankrupt province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I was not at that meeting, I am not going to the meeting, and I am not interested in hearing those speeches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Final supplementary. While we know the Minister of Health was not there, let me tell him who was. The Minister of Tourism showed up for breakfast, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was there in the afternoon, and the Minister of Fisheries phoned Mr. Peckford looking for his autograph for three of his constituents. That is who was there, I say to the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister this question. The fact of the matter is that ‘Mr. Liberal Newfoundland' himself requested the autograph of former Premier Peckford while he was here.

Let me ask the minister (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Final question. I have just delivered the biggest birthday gift to the Minister of Health. He is now the frontrunner in the leadership for the Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask him this question. In view of the fact that we have gone from no information to hauling, bit by bit, information out of this government, when is it that you are going to go before the mikes and be truthful and honest with the people of the Province and tell them exactly that the transmission line from the federal government's point of view is not on? When are you going to stand up publicly to your federal Liberal cousins for the people in this Province who so demand it from you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the list of my colleagues who were at the aforementioned meeting, I can now understand why my colleague the Minister of Fisheries is taking them all out on his boat for the summer as well. Because he went down to get the autograph so he -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: As for the other two, I know now why my colleague the Minister of Fisheries was there, to get the list for the rent-a-crowd on the boat for a day on the bay. The other two were there at our request, actually, looking for some good ideas, got none and left again. That is why neither of them stayed very long.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have taken the position all along that in matters as serious and important as the future of the Province that there is nothing to be gained by negotiating on a daily, weekly or monthly basis the details of these kinds of things in public. When there is a final decision reached on any particular part, including the in-feed, whether or not it will proceed - and I might ask this question I am assuming that it is true that the official position of the Leader of the Opposition and the Official Opposition in its entirety is that this negotiation with the Government of Canada over the in-feed be successful. I'm assuming that is their wish and hope for Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: When it is or isn't decided that it shall be, Mr. Speaker, then the appropriate minister and/or the Premier will make that known to the public, when there is a final decision reached. There hasn't been. That is why there has been no presentation on the matter at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I think it was probably in the first or second Question Period in the spring session of the House that I raised some concerns to the minister about the changes that are being implemented in the EI system and how negatively it affects rural Newfoundlanders. It probably affects them worse this year than in any other years, because we are going to see more people, especially the people involved in the fish plants, now finding themselves falling short of being able to access this program.

The minister indicated at that time that he was actively pursuing a meeting with the hon. Jane Stewart, the Minister of HRDC, to express to her his concern and the concern of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the minister if this meeting took place? Would he tell us the results of the meeting, please?

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

MR. NOEL: I really get a variety of questions in my position. The last question I got was from the Member for St. John's South who was concerned about some of the bird species off our coasts being destroyed by some of the oil slicks.

While we all understand that Tory politicians are particularly concerned about endangered species these days, I'm glad we have one member on that side who is concerned about Here and Now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: You are not giving your member an opportunity to hear all that we are doing on behalf of his constituents.

As the member knows, we had a meeting with Minister Stewart just over a month ago. We discussed possible solutions to the problems with her. We persuaded her to come down to meet with interested parties in our Province. We are in the process of planning that meeting. She is going to be here within a number of weeks. Last week when the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, was in the Province I arranged for him to meet with plant workers who are most concerned about these particular problems, and they felt that they had a successful and useful meeting with Minister Martin.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister has already had the meeting with the hon. Jane Stewart and he put forward some possible solutions, I wonder if he would tell the House and the people of this Province the solutions that he suggested in order to fix this program?

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

MR. NOEL: The member should be well aware of the kind of solutions Liberals have in mind. At our recent convention in Ottawa the Prime Minister of Canada committed to making some changes in the EI system that are necessary, particularly for people in our part of the country. Our party passed a resolution to change the intensity provisions of the EI act and we have talked to Minister Stewart and other officials of the federal government about detailed policies that we think she should bring in in order to alleviate the problems.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister that I have some information, and information from good sources, that tell me the changes that the Minister of HRDC, the hon. Jane Stewart, is looking at is number one, looking at doing away with the intensity rule.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Number two, looking at lifting the cap, making a higher cap before clawback starts with income from people who apply for EI. We are talking about a cap now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: - of $39,000. I can tell you, minister, the people that I am talking about and representing are not fortunate enough to be making $39,000 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: The changes, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: The changes, Mr. Speaker, are geared towards the 101 MPs who represent the federal government in Ottawa, the people from Ontario.

I ask the minister if he would today commit to forming an all party committee of this House to look at meeting with the MPs from Newfoundland, looking at meeting with the minister and going forward and offering some suggestions, and putting out the plea to make this program representative of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that it was created to help.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: From the quality of the information that the member appears to have, I gather that he spent a lot of time with former Premier Peckford when he was here in the Province as well. Because if we were to follow the kind of policies that they followed at that time, since we formed the government over the past decade, the Province would be in far worse shape than it is today.

If we reach a point when we feel we need the participation of the Opposition parties in dealing with this issue then we will pursue you and ask you to join us in doing so, but we have great confidence in our own ability to deal with it and how we are doing that so far, and we intend to continue doing so.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. Minister, the Abitibi Consolidated mill in Grand Falls-Windsor is one of the most important industries in Central Newfoundland and, indeed, in Newfoundland generally. We understand the long-term agreement and leases and permits between the Province and the company are about to expire and the government is in negotiations with the company to work out a successor agreement. Minister, can you tell the House today where the government is in these negotiations, whether talks are proceeding smoothly, and when the minister expects these negotiations to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question. The preamble to his question was that Abitibi Consolidated is an important industry and so is the other paper company, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited. So is the sawmill industry. They are all important in this Province. They are very important to jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are working now and looking at, and having discussions, initiating discussions, on the leases which will expire in 2002. A number of leases start to expire with Abitibi Consolidated for Grand Falls limits, and it is an important issue. We will be working on it over the next few months and we will certainly apprise the House as to those discussions. Our goal is to ensure stability for the future for all of the forest industry.

MR. SPEAKER: One supplementary question, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the economy of Central Newfoundland is firmly tied to the future of Abitibi Consolidated mill and the local forest industry, with thousands of jobs depending directly and indirectly on the success of the industry. Will the government be working out an arrangement as part of this agreement to guarantee sufficient trees are planted in silviculture operations to replace what is being harvested? Minister, in other words, will development be written into that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, sustainable development is written into the Forestry Act. The Department of Forest Resources practices sustainable development. The government endorses the policy, always has. That is the way we practice it in this Province. We replace the trees that are cut down and we thin the trees in the forests that we need to grow faster. We have been doing that for the last decade and a half. We are doing a lot more of it these days. We are going to spend approximately $14 million to $15 million in silviculture alone this year creating over probably 1,500 jobs.

We are going to continue to do those practices, but it is extremely important that we ensure the stability of the forest industry of the Province. I think we have to start looking very seriously at where we are going because we, right now, the measures that we use and the procedures we have in place - we have some of the highest standards in the world when it comes to forestry practices and it is time for us to understand that we do do it that way -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: - carry out the forest industry in a sustainable way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: In recent months we have heard a lot, Mr. Speaker, about the talks and plans concerning the ferry service to the Province. My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. We have heard a lot of discussion about the service between Port aux Basques and North Sydney, between the Straits and the Island portion of the Province. However, there is one more ferry service that is very important to this Province, and that is the service provided between Goose Bay to Lewisporte and return.

The cost of traveling on that ferry, return, is almost $1,300 for a family of four. Cabins are not plentiful and they hard to obtain, making it very unattractive for use by residents and tourists. So I ask the minister what efforts he has made to ensure that this service provided is improved and made affordable for users.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about the service, I guess, from the Sir Robert Bond between Lewisporte and Goose Bay. The Sir Robert Bond services Cartwright and Goose Bay and she is on approximately a fourteen-day cycle there. With regards to the service on it, we usually have consultations with the people in Labrador once a year, especially since the contract was signed by Coastal Labrador Marine Services a few years ago. In fact, this is the third and final year for that contract. So we will have our consultations with those people. If there is anything that should come up with regards to scheduling, with regards to anything else, we will address that, and that is the only chance there will be any change in anything there on that service. That is, if the people who we consult with ask for that or request something different, whether it is fares, whether it is scheduling or whatever.

By the way, for the member's information, that schedule is due to start on June 9.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister would advise whether or not the fees that are charged on that run are prohibitive for a lot of people, and whether or not during the meetings that take place will representation or can representation be made to have the fees reviewed that would make them fall in line and affordable for the people of the Province?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, when we consult with the people, as we have done every year since the service was taken over in 1997, we will consult with each community and all those things will be addressed at that time. Whether it is, like I said, scheduling, whether it is about fares or whatever. They will bring it back to me and I will make a determination of whether there are going to be any changes or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban And Rural Planning In The Province."

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the people of Labrador have endured a shortage of personal care facilities for seniors in Labrador;

AND WHEREAS both the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board and the Labrador Health Board have highlighted concerns with regard to this facility for seniors in Labrador;

AND WHEREAS there are areas of Labrador that have no personal care facilities at present;

AND WHEREAS it is understood that there is a "moratorium" denying any further investment of government funds in personal care facilities;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House support the adoption of policies that encourage the investment of federal-provincial funds into the construction of personal care facilities for communities in Labrador.

Thank you.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to rise and present this petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Springdale and their supporters:

WHEREAS Mr. Baxter Butt, owner of Baxter Butt's Sawmill in Springdale, has created many jobs for the people of Green Bay area for thirty-five years through manufacturing products using timber; and

WHEREAS Mr. Butt has received no assistance in obtaining timber this year; and

WHEREAS without this timber, the business will not survive;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to direct representatives from the forestry, environment, and mining departments to help Mr. Baxter Butt with a supply of timber to meet his immediate needs. And as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been ongoing for the past year and I have talked to the minister many times about it. This petition is being supported by over 376 names here, and also by the Chamber of Commerce in Springdale and surrounding areas, the councils in surrounding areas, the businesses in the town of Springdale and surrounding areas, and also by the mining industry, which is a very important part of Mr. Butt's business. Because from the timber that he cuts and saws he produces core boxes for the mining industry, which are 100 per cent supportive of his business. They are backing him to get the resource to continue on in this business. The boxes that he supplies are superior, they are second to none. The mining company is very concerned that he is not going to be able to supply that product to them.

Mr. Butt was promised over a year ago that something would be done. The minister and his officials were out there, they looked at the situation, and they guaranteed Mr. Butt that he would have a wood supply so he can continue on in his business, hiring over ten employees to work in his business. That doesn't seem like a lot of jobs, but in a small rural area in Newfoundland and Labrador today ten jobs are a lot of jobs. We must make sure that these jobs continue.

It is not that it is a new business. This business has been here for thirty-five years. In thirty-five years this gentleman worked hard to build his business and supply the product to the marketplace that he has been doing for all of these years. He has hit a brick wall now when it comes to the resource. The officials promised me, and him too, last year that they can find the wood and they would have the wood for him to continue on. Since that, other permit holders have gone in to areas Mr. Butt has identified, areas where he can get the resource that he needs. Everybody agreed that this resource was not accessible by the bigger companies. They were not interested in this resource.

I call on the minister and his department to make sure that they deliver on the commitment that they made to this gentleman and the people of the Green Bay area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

I believe the hon. the Opposition House Leader adjourned debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was having some comments yesterday when we adjourned debate on the Budget and how the numbers just don't add up and match the news releases that were released by government in the total, with $31.8 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am just picking up where I ended. I will go to another topic if the minister does not like it. Why do people in Clarenville and surrounding areas and other parts of the Province have to pay $25 to get blood taken every week when here in the City of St. John's they take it and it does not cost anything? Did the minister get a chance to check that out?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, (inaudible) stem from budgetary policy. The minister would not tell me if it is budget or not. He would not tell me if he makes the decision or those boards make the decision. Since I don't know who to blame, since he has not accepted responsibility, I am assuming the minister is responsible and it is a decision and policy that came out of his department, of which there is a budget of $1.25 billion. It is very relevant, I might add, to this particular Budget.

I spoke with a man whose wife has MS and is on oxygen, a disabled individual, unable to get out. They have to get an ambulance if they go to a hospital. To pay $75 to get an ambulance to get a blood test is not practical. They should not have to pay $25 to have someone come into their home.

It was only two years ago, on May 4, 1998, I raised that issue here in this House. On May 5 and 6 I raised it. Finally, minister, when they changed it here in St. John's they reverted and said: No, we are going to pay for it now. Why don't they do the same in Clarenville, Bonavista, the Burin Peninsula, in Ferryland and other parts of this Province? I might say to the minister, under the same board here, the community health care, in St. John's there is a different policy. In St. John's there is one thing that applies and in rural areas something else applies. Why are we having separate policies based on geography?

It behooves me to ask why somebody who lives in Clarenville, Ferryland, Marystown or Grand Bank has to be discriminated against and have to pay for the service that is provided here in the City of St. John's. We talk about the five basic principles in the Canada Health Act. We talk about the accessibility aspect. Accessibility at a price, that is privatization. We are sure we have heard the minister, and the former minister, and people say: We don't want to privatize our health care system. Well, right now, close to one-third of the dollars spent in this country on health care are paid for by private insurances. That is private.

I spoke with a lady today whose family member is going away to the United States to get treatment for cancer that cannot be provided here. We are paying a private clinic in the United States to do that. If that is not privatization, what is? Some members know all about the cost of paying for health care in the United States, I can tell you. Some have had the experience and know others who have gone through that experience. It is not a cheap proposition, I can tell you.

We need to have accessibility to health care regardless of where we live here in our Province. We should not have to expect a second-class service because we live in Central Newfoundland, Clarenville, or down in Bellevue. You should not have to pay. They should be able to (inaudible) have blood taken. In fact, I understand they do it in Labrador City. If they go out and take blood you don't have to pay in the City of St. John's. You do in Clarenville, Ferryland, Marystown and other areas of the Province. Why are we having different standards for health care in different parts of the Province? It is unfortunate.

The government said they spent $136 million on health care. Well, that was a smokescreen. It is misinformation that has gone to the public. That is misinformation. They are only spending, according to the budget, less than $32 million; $31.7-some million extra going into health care compared to last year.

What did the boards do last year? The boards overran that - deficits of nearly $40 million as it was, over $30 million to $40 million in deficits. In fact, I think it is over $40 million deficits in total. Here we are, putting in $31.7 million. That won't even pay for the service we had last year. The equivalent service we had last year cannot be paid for this year out of the current budget. Why are we seeing hospital bed closures?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who? Me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know. I don't know anything about that campaign. I do know that, according to what I read today, he is running second. He is going to have to give him another little push, if that's that case. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is, yes. I think the polls show that one in six people will vote for the NDP candidate; one in four will vote for the P.C. candidate; one in five will vote for the Liberal candidate, roughly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't think so. I think the NDP -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In the last election they got 17 per cent. Any time you knock on doors for the first time - when you knock on doors for the first time you think you are well ahead. I did it myself. I came through a squeaker the first time. You think you have it all sewn up when you knock on doors for the first time, but you find out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The first time, 125 votes. The first one, they say, is always the toughest. Well, actually, from that election, ten months later, the highest percentage in the Province, seventy-four point some in less than ten months. Basically, the first one is the toughest. You knock on doors - you have gone through it, everybody - the first time around you think you are doing a lot better than you are doing, until you find out that everybody is not going to tell you the truth. You will find that out very quickly, and that is one of the things that the candidate might be experiencing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, one person told me a lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: I remember campaigning (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and if you had to stay home your candidate would have won. The Minister of Fisheries came up in my district (inaudible). He must have been nearly two weeks up there, and the longer he was there the better I did. I was just hoping he would have left Harbour Main-Whitbourne earlier and come up. I will tell you, and you can make a note of this, had you kept him out of Trinity North he would have won by a lot bigger. Had you had him out there for another week, I think you would have lost it, and that's about the truth of it. Do a poll on that and you will probably find out I am right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I would say the same thing if he was here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you know that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he had a right to tie him on when the election started and keep him out of there. Yes, I know what the Government House Leader - his actions there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you didn't. I am not saying anything on the record of what he does. I can't interpret motions and actions. I am not going to do it. It is not my job to do it, but I do think that people who have gone through it before will experience it. Some of the candidates in this federal election went through it before, and they know that every door you knock at you get experience in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: She was a smart woman. She knew.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, who are you campaigning for?

MR. SULLIVAN: I went up to a meeting with Loyola Hearn last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Malone? Well, one in six people said they support him. In the last election, 17 per cent voted NDP. There are now 16 per cent in the polls who said they would support him, actually, but I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, 16 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is 16.5 per cent, sorry, but I think it will come a bit higher when you look at the undecideds. When you look at it realistically, to go from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, if there is a two-way fight and you are only 8 per cent behind it won't matter; but when it is a three-way fight and you are 8 per cent behind, you have to increase your percentage by 50 per cent over what you have now, it is going to be a tall order, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? No. They are asking questions on that; that is why. Not at all. In fact, the Liberal candidate is closer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not. I was just responding to a question that the vote is coming from the P.C. I think a little over one-third are undecided. That is not uncommon. When I ran in the election before last - the only time I ever ran (inaudible) elections, there was a poll done in the third one and it showed that after the week it was called there were 25 per cent undecided - in the provincial election - and five days before it showed there were 8 per cent undecided. So there was one-quarter undecided in a provincial district, almost halfway through the campaign, 25 per cent undecided. The percentage they ended up from the first poll was exactly the same as when the 8 per cent were undecided. The undecided shifted in percentage to where the people were. That is what I found.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They could. Who knows?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I don't deny it. Lots of people approached me up there; I don't deny that. A few approached me to run P.C., and a few approached me to run Liberal.

In St. John's West, it is a three-way fight. When you have a three-way battle, it's tough for anyone to move significantly - that is the point I am making - because if you are in third place, you have to get votes from first and second significantly to close the gap. When there are thirty-some undecided and you want to overtake a lead, you have to increase. It is not uncommon. In a general election, that can happen overnight almost. In a general election, you can change it. In by-elections it is more difficult, but it is overall -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who? No, he didn't enter. I don't think he is in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He withdrew and he is campaigning. Yes, that is basically what happened.

Anyway, I understand they are running hard campaigns.

Back to the Budget now. I scared the minister off. I am still waiting to get his answer on why somebody out in Clarenville has to pay $25 a week to give blood, while here in St. John's it is done free; why somebody in Marystown has to pay $25 to go out and take blood, and in Labrador City you can get it done free. To me, there are different standards by different health care boards and it is not right. There should be a standard departmental policy applied universally to health care boards that the service should be available there.

What is happening now is that you have boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was covered. In 1994 - on May 4, 1998, I raised the issue here in the House, almost two years ago to the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1994, I would say that was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, in 1998. I made a mistake first.

The minister at the time said: No, there is no change in policy - if you remember. I asked it again on Tuesday, May 5: There is no change in policy. I asked it again on May 6: No, the member doesn't know what he is talking about.

Outside in the scrum, when the word filtered back from the department that yes, they changed it, a statement was made that they are going to revert and they are now going to continue to do what they have always done. We are not going to take away that service, and that was done.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Is the hon. gentleman's time up, or is he speaking by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I really don't care, but I would like to know

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair checked with the Table when the hon. member was speaking. My understanding is that he is continuing from yesterday and still does have some time left.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have any time left.

MR. SPEAKER: He doesn't have any time left?

MR. SULLIVAN: My time is gone? Well, I guess when your time is up, your time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will just take a minute or two to wrap up. I just wanted to finish my train of thought here on health care on the Budget.

The point I am trying to say is that there should be standard policies that should apply to people regardless of where they live in the Province. If a person who is disabled and living in their home in Labrador City can have someone come to their house and give blood, and they don't pay, and also here in St. John's, but you have to pay in Clarenville, and you have to pay in Ferryland, and you have to pay in Marystown, that is wrong. If you are disabled and you can't get out, the same policy should be provided.

What is happening with these boards is, we are losing control. We have eight health care boards here in the Province and there is no standardization coming from the department. Boards are out competing for doctors, and offering locums and other costs to one and offering something else to another. They are all out competing against each other. We have competitive boards, but the budgets are all coming from the Department of Health, from the one source. Therefore, I am saying that we have to have a level playing field in terms of getting services. You can't be discriminated against because of where you live. We know there is a main hospital here, and there is a cost in getting in here, but the services should be available regardless to where you live.

If a person who is deemed serious out in Corner Brook has to have heart surgery, and there is a hospital here in St. John's, they should have equal access based on the priority of their medical condition. It does not happen with the provision of many provision managed services. We do not have equal accessibility to health care, and there is a privatization occurring within our Province. We are condoning it, and now 31.-some per cent of the costs spent on health care in this country are paid now by private individuals, private insurers, and we are creeping that way whether we like it or not. Privatization is here in health care right now in this country, and it is here now in our Province, and I have hundreds of examples I can give of it and how access to the list can increase if you have certain workers compensation or other service. If you pay for the service, there is greater access to getting the service.

In fact, I know of people coming into this Province to get certain treatments now, while we are paying people to go to the United States to get that service. I know individuals and people in that category. I will not talk about names of individuals, but I have spoken to people in that category. We have privatization here under another name. It is happening in the system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on the Budget debate. Yesterday, we talked about the Budget debate as well, I guess, but in a separate forum, as we looked at some of the things that have been included in this Budget, and some of the things that we, as an Opposition, have problems with. When we stand here and people accuse us of being negative, we are negative because we are issuing back to the government the things that we should see changed. I suppose if you want to bring about change to something that has already been proposed or written, then the people who have written that proposal consider you to be a negative speaker, but there are things that should be included in the Budget that were not included, or other areas of the Budget that have not gone far enough.

When you hear the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader, talk about health care in his very compassionate way, and talk about the discrepancies that happen between rural and urban areas, it goes even further than he just touched on. As I listened to him speak, I was reminded of home care workers, the hourly rate for home care workers in this Province. It was only a couple of days ago that I had a call from my district, from an individual who is a home care worker within the system of Health and Community Services, and she talked about the differences in the hourly rate in what she was being paid in the eastern region and what her sister was being paid as a health care worker in the central region. It was something like fifty or sixty cents an hour. That may not be a lot of money to somebody who is making $50,000 or $60,000 a year, but when you are making $6 an hour, I say to you, it is a big difference. Her question was, and it was a simple question: We are being paid from government, and we are both working as health care workers. Just because we are in different regions, is that any reason why we should be collecting different rates of pay? Good question.

You go and you talk to people involved in health care, and the only answer they give is that we do it in a different way in different regions. I submit to you that if we are going to have rules and regulations, and if we are going to be paying people from the public Treasury, then we should have those same rules and regulations - the people who work within the system abiding by those rules and regulations. There is no reason whatsoever that people should be paid a different rate of pay, or their work regulations should be completely different, if they are doing the same job, employed by the same employer, working in same area, doing the same job.

I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services that this is one area that maybe we should be looking at making changes in, and making sure that we have the same rules and regulations and we have the same rates of pay for people who work within the system and provide home care at the same level in all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today in Question Period I raised some questions to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about unemployment insurance. I'm not so sure how serious he is taking the need for changes to be brought about in the EI system in this Province. Because I can tell you, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today the need has never been greater. When you see what is happening in the fishery today, when you see the cutback of 20 per cent production in fish plant workers' salaries, in fish plant workers' work, that you are going to see many more people having to access this system. I fear what is going to happen if we don't implement changes. We are going to see people having to top up their Employment Insurance by going to the Department of Social Services. Proud people that don't want to go to the Department of Social Services, but people who want to go and work but because of the nature of their work, because of the seasonal work that they do, that going to work is not going to be an option for them.

When you see the federal government with the coffers of the EI program, it is not a cash strapped program. When you see the EI program now having funding at its disposal in excess of $30 billion and you hear people out there screaming to be able to go and do a training program; and you hear another group of people saying: I would like to be able to access a job somewhere in Toronto or Alberta, but the federal government says: I'm sorry, but we are not going to provide you with mobility money to get there; and you hear somebody else saying: I would like to have a second chance at my education, I realize now that I made a mistake by leaving school, and I would like to go back and do upgrading and prepare myself to go and take a trade because there might be some opportunity for me to go to work, and the federal government says: I'm sorry, you don't qualify for those programs, we don't have funding there because the rules and regulations are clearly set that we are not putting money into that program any more; and when you see people not being able to go and access a job because the nature of their job tells them that it is not feasible for the company to carry out work in a certain time or season, or there is no work for them at their local employer's place of business where they normally found work; and you see the federal government with $30 billion in an EI account, which I submit that you will probably see used to pay off the debt of this country, probably used for election promises in order to win certain districts, as we witnessed in the last provincial election; when you see these kinds of things happening, you wonder where our people are that have been elected to represent the people that they are supposed to represent here in this House of Assembly or in the House of Commons in Ottawa. It is shameful that we are allowing this to happen today.

I know we needed changes in the EI system. All was not well, but if people were taking advantage of the program then deal with the people that were taking advantage of that particular program. Don't bring in blanket policies to cover everybody. If you are going to go out and drink and drive, you deal with the person who is drinking and driving. You don't come out and say: We are going to close down the highways and we are not going to give everybody a driver's license any more because John or Joe or Mary was caught drinking and driving. You deal with the abusers.

From what I am hearing, and I am hearing it from good sources, I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I am not surprised - because I have stated it in this House before - the people that run the Government of Canada today, the people that decide policy today that we are governed by, and the other ten provinces and territories are governed by, are really the 101 Members of Parliament from the Province of Ontario. It is something like 163, or 164, or 165 Liberal Members of Parliament that make up the Liberal government in Ottawa. Of those 163 people, 101 are from the Province of Ontario. You don't have to be a genius to know the people who have the most clout. You don't have to be a genius or an expert to know the people that are calling the shots and running the show.

I submit to you, hon. Government House Leader, that one of the changes you will see implemented in the EI program will be possibly the elimination of the intensity rule, which is a help. You will see people at least be able to get the 5 per cent that government in their wisdom decided to take from them. You look at the reason why that 5 per cent was implemented. It was because they were punishing people - now get this - 1 per cent a year because they were on unemployment insurance. They were treated almost like criminals. They said: Because you have accessed unemployment insurance last year, now instead of getting 55 per cent of what you are entitled to we are going to pay you 54 per cent, and if you access it the next year you are going to get 53 per cent, and the next year 52 per cent, until we reach the bottom line of 50 per cent. How silly. How shameful, I say to people opposite.

I can tell you the other thing that is coming down if there are changes to the EI system. You are going to see the clawback change. Right now, the way the EI system is set up by the Government of Canada is that if you make over $39,000 a year then there is going to be a clawback time at the time of reckoning, at the time that you file your personal income tax at the end of the year. If you show an income greater than $39,000, I say to the Member for Labrador West, then they start clawing back. They start clawing back part of the EI amount of money that you drew. I don't have a great big problem with that because EI was never meant for people to go and access it and open up a bank account. It was never meant for somebody to take it, put it aside and take a trip. Thirty-nine thousand dollars is a fair amount of money.

The people today that I am talking about are the fish plant workers and the people who work at construction in this Province, the loggers, the people who work in the tourism industry, the people who go out and have to struggle to get enough EI contributions to qualify. I can tell you, not one of them - and I don't have to guess and I don't have to say that probably not one of them, or maybe not one of them - I can clearly state today that not one of those people will make $39,000 a year. Who are the changes geared to help? Are they geared to help the fish plant worker? Are they going to be geared to help the logger? Are they going to be geared to help the waitress in the restaurant? Are they going to be geared to help the people who are fortunate enough to go out and go to work on a make-work program or the people who are fortunate enough to be able to access some seasonal job? I suggest not. The people it is geared up to help, once again, are the people from another province, the people from places like Ontario that carry the balance I suppose, if you will, of power in the House of Commons where those choices are going to be made.

That is what I understand is coming down. That is what I understand the minister, one of those days, will stand and read a ministerial statement about and say that he is proud to have learned that the hon. Jane Stewart has now looked at making changes in the EI program, and here is what those changes are going to be. It is shameful.

I know I am not the only one getting calls on this particular program that is in effect right now. When people could go and access work nobody cared about what the rules and regulations were. Nobody cared about having to have a divisor of fourteen weeks. Nobody cared about the amount of time that you were able to be on the system if they were working, if they had a job, but when you don't have a job, when the only option is probably to have to leave this Province, or the other option is to go into the department of social services in order to get funding to put bread and butter on the table to support your family, then all of a sudden it becomes a sudden reality.

We are not asking changes forever and a day. We are not asking it to be put back the way it was, allow abuse, open it up, spend the $35 billion or whatever is going to be there at the end of the year. All we are asking for - it is very simple - is to eliminate the intensity rule and eliminate the divisor rule. There is no reason whatsoever, if somebody can only get ten weeks work a year, why their Employment Insurance amount should be divided by fourteen weeks. It is silly, it doesn't make sense. I don't know where the figure came from. Because the people that I know, whether it is fourteen or sixteen, if they had a job it wouldn't matter, but it matters when they don't have a job and when they can't access enough work and enough funding in order to be able to make ends meet and qualify for the program as it presently exists.

Then we went and cut back the duration of the program and said: Now, because we are going to bring about changes, we are going to make it available for a lesser number of weeks. I say to members opposite that when we look at the changes within the fishing industry - and right now it looks like the crab season, for instance, may close as of July 15 and stay closed until sometime in September. Indications are that you are going to see most plants and most processors go all out, process the amount of crab that they have access to now. Not that they are allowed to because it is an open market as far as buying the product, but there is a total allowable catch. They will go all out, get what crab they can, and have the processing take place and completed prior to July 15. When people then go on Employment Insurance, if they are fortunate enough to have enough hours, they will end up with eight or ten weeks' work. That eight or ten weeks work then will have to be divided by fourteen and probably 50 per cent; 51 per cent if they don't have the changes brought about before that time. So, you are probably, in reality, going to see people that normally received $290 or $310 a week maybe down to about $100, $120 or $140 a week. People cannot survive on it.

I don't know what government has in mind as a figure that they could live with, with this program being able to have some money as a reserve. I don't know if it is $20 billion or if it is $10 billion. At one time the program was in the red and we were always talking about the need to have changes made. I don't think the program was ever implemented, and I don't think the intent of having the program put in place was ever to make money. It reminds me a little bit now like the Central Mortgage and Housing program when that first came into effect. It was brought into effect to help the people who were on a low income in places like this Province and other areas. Certainly it is not only this Province but right across this country of ours. It was an opportunity for them to be able to go out and have their own home, to be able to have a mortgage that they could realistically afford, something that was tied into their earnings. Then, all of a sudden, we know what happened there. It became a money grab again. It became a way where government would put money there and collect high interest rates. Once again, we saw a program - that was put in place to help people who were less fortunate, people who had a low income - completely turned around and was allowed to continue for those for whom it was not designed to help.

That is wrong, and it is unfortunate. Because I can assure you that rural Newfoundland and Labrador today is probably going through one of the worst times that I have seen. While we might come in here in our little bubble and we exist here so far removed sometimes from what is happening out there in some households in Newfoundland and Labrador, with the calls you get - and you see it when you go out there - there is no point in shying away from it. There is no point in thinking that if you are going to stay in here, not go home this weekend, or not knock on somebody's door, or not return somebody's call, because you know what the nature of the call is going to be. I can tell you it is not going to go away. It is something that we have to face.

Do we have the answers over here? Absolutely not. We don't have the answers to what is happening with the crab fishery. We don't have the answers to what is happening with employment opportunities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I, for one, do not stand here every day and condemn government for some of the initiatives they have taken on in order to try to respond to that problem in rural areas. Because I am a firm believer that mistakes are going to be made. Those who do not make mistakes very seldom do anything. If we go out and if something can be identified that we can do in rural areas it will give some hope, if you would, or to be able to provide some opportunities. We do not have to have the megaprojects. It can be a project that employs one - or maybe a project is the wrong name for it. Anyway, an employment opportunity that would help one, two, three or four. I think those are the ways they we have to try to build rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We hear the government talking about the new economy. We hear them talking about how well the economy is doing and we are leading Canada and we are leading another province. Inside the overpass, in St. John's and Mount Pearl, we are doing very well. There are some good construction projects. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of people (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No doubt about that, but I think we are doing very well here. There are people finding a job, there are people employed, and the economy is doing quite nicely, thank you. I do not know if we will ever reach the point where we will have no unemployment. That is Utopia. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the unemployment levels in some of the communities in some of the areas around this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - it is shameful. I always refer, if I can, just to finish up on this note -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

I always refer to this one community in my district. I will not say the community's name but I can assure you it is true. This one community, 160 people live there, and up until 1992 everybody who wanted a job in that particular community was working. I am not saying they were working year-round because they weren't, but they had an income year-round because their gainful employment allowed them, when their work stopped, to be able to access employment insurance. They were feeding their families and they were driving a decent car, they were buying some new furniture, and the community was doing very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. FITZGERALD: That was right up to 1992. I will go on further than that, because when the funding was there through the fisheries program that helped them as well.

Mr. Speaker, now in this community of 160 people there are four people who get up in the morning and go to work, I say to members. I go there and there are people who have lost their homes. There are people who have had to take their automobile back and say: Look, I'm sorry, I do not want you to come and take it. I do not want to be in hock to the bank. I do not want to be in hock to the finance company. Here is my car. Here is my truck. I know people who have taken back - probably a little less important, but to some people not because they use it in order to get their wood and do the things they need in order to survive - their trikes and their Ski-Doos. They had those items, they could afford to have, and they have taken them back. There are four people who get up in the morning and go to work.

I can guarantee you that General Motors is not going to go down to this sick community and start up an automobile manufacturing plant. Mr. Lee is not going to go down there and open up a sweatshirt plant. We are not going to be fortunate enough to have somebody go down there and start an oil and gas industry. What is the answer? How do we support the community? We had a glorious opportunity, I say to members opposite, to help some of those people when we took part in the fisheries program and we brought about an early retirement. We had a glorious opportunity where this Province could spend and receive thirty cent dollars, but the premier of the day would not go along with it. He said: No, we are not going to do it. It would have been an opportunity where we could have had younger people in the fishing boats, we could have had younger people in the fish plants, and we could have had our older people continuing to support their community and receiving an income where they could carry on with a decent living.

Those are some of the things that we have missed, but we have to forget about that now. Not forget about it, but be reminded it of it, but to reach forward and not let it control us, and look at doing something different. We have to do things together, we have to reach out and implement programs that will help those communities and help sustain them. Because I can guarantee you, and I will end on this note, that going to Toronto, Alberta or British Columbia is not an option for somebody who is fifty-five or sixty years old with a grade I or a grade II education. If you went to them today and told them there was a job up in Alberta, it would be almost the same as taking a gun and saying: I'm going to pull the trigger. Because that is not an option. They wouldn't be able to go and cope with it, and I don't blame them. Why would they be expected to bar up their home, to leave everything that they have worked for, to go away to another province to work their butt off for the last five or six years just to keep body and soul together, and try to achieve what they have already achieved right here in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, with that, I think my time has lapsed and I will pass it on to another member on this side, who, I am sure, will raise some good points. My friend for Quidi Vidi is quite aware of some of the problems and issues that I have brought forward. I am sure that he will expand on them.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An opportunity to speak on the Budget Debate is an opportunity to raise some of the concerns about what this government has ignored in its Budget to the House of Assembly and to the people of this Province. I spoke yesterday on the non-confidence motion, and I want to take up some of the issues that I was discussing then when my time ran out, particularly the issue of home care, which the preceding speaker spoke about, the Member for Bonavista South. He talked about the concerns about home care workers in various parts of the Province receiving differential rates, and very low rates, as he pointed out. I think he talked about $6 a hour. I think many home care workers aren't getting even that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Five dollars and eighty-four cents is all they get for most of their hours.

MR. HARRIS: Five dollars and eighty-four cents is a figure referenced by the Opposition House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I will also talk about what happens in the home care field. I call it a field. Some people call it an industry, because some people see it as a commercial opportunity and a way to have some sort of little differentiation between what the home care worker gets - $5.84 or less - and what is paid to the agency by the government - $7 or something more than that - to eke out a profit and an administrative fee for doing that.

What we see in this whole issue of home care is an abdication by this government of its responsibilities to the people who need home care and health care in this Province and also to the people who work in the health care industry. The previous speaker, the Member for Bonavista South, talked about the difference between what home care workers may get under one regional health board as opposed as to what they might get under another.

What about the difference - here we see a real crucial difference - between people providing personal care in an institution, whether it be the Hoyles-Escasoni or any other long-term care facility under the aegis of the Department of Health, and the person providing the exact same care in the homes of individuals. Those individuals, in some cases, are getting half or little more than half of what their counterparts are; who are providing the very same type of services, perhaps in better working conditions, but the very same service, and are getting paid almost twice as much as people in the home care field are getting.

Why has that come about? It has come about because this government has refused to recognize its own role as employer of these individuals. They are in receipt of employment from the source of the Treasury Board. If you look at the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, it defines what elements come under, what work can come under, the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. It is defined as employment where the funds come in whole or in part from government sources, and in the case of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act it is a matter for Cabinet to decide which enterprises are covered by the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. In every way, except by a motion of the Cabinet, these people are in fact public sector workers, providing a public service at public expense to the people of this Province who are in need of home care.

I fully recognize the government's situation with respect to funding. It is a matter of national concern and particularly by our party, particularly by the New Democratic Party which has been carrying on the fight for restoration of basic health care services by the restoration of the Canada Health and Social Transfer. We have been carrying on that battle ever since the Paul Martin Budget came down in February of this year. In every opportunity in the Parliament of Canada, in the airwaves across this country, we have been carrying out this battle.

In fact, it was kind of instructive that last week when Alexa McDonough, the national Leader of the NDP, was here in St. John's campaigning in St. John's West, she was interviewed on CBC national radio by Mike Enright on This Morning Show. Mr. Enright was kind of puzzled, he had a very funny question. He said: Ms McDonough, ever since the Budget has come down in Ottawa in February the Official Opposition, the Reform Party - now the Reform Alliance - the Tories and the Bloc Québécois have been asking questions about HRDC, Jane Stewart, and the funding issues related to that department and you, for some reason, have been constantly talking about the Paul Martin Budget and the need for improvements to our health care system. Why is that Ms McDonough? he asked. Are you somehow or other missing the point of politics in this country? Are you somehow out of the loop? Don't you just get it? Because the other parties obviously are on to something else.

The answer given by Ms McDonough is the answer that is the most sensible one. It is that is the issue that is in the front of the minds of 80 per cent of Canadians across this country. When she knocks on doors from one end of the country to the other, what people want to talk about is health care.

We have a country which has the means to provide a first-rate health care system, expand it to a first-rate nationally funded home care system, expand it to a first-rate nationally funded pharmacare system. What we see happening instead is a government in Ottawa sitting on its surplus, sitting on its megabucks that it has at its disposal, and instead of making the improvements to the health care system across the country are keeping it in crisis.

What are we doing here? We are passing the pressure on to the people of this Province by inadequate health care services, by inadequate home care services. In order to get access to home care in this Province you have to impoverish yourself to the point of being eligible for social assistance in order to access the home care system that is provided by this government. That is not good enough. We have to recognize that increasingly this government, and all governments, recognize that health care does not have to be provided in an institution or in a hospital.

Many problems that people have that led to long-term stays in hospital can now be adequately looked after in their own home. People who would, ten years ago, perhaps be put into an institution or go to an old-age home or a special care home, are now able to stay at home if they have the proper services. There are obvious advantages. Number one, for the individual, him or herself, to be able to stay in their own home is something that they want to do. They are happier. They stay healthier longer. They are more relaxed and more, of course, able to be in touch with and be a part of family life, their extended family and their community around them.

Number one, home care is a good idea because it is good for the patient, it is good for the individual, and that is, of course, the most important matter. Secondly, and also important when we are keeping an eye on the public responsibility for expenditure of funds, is that it costs less. It clearly and obviously costs less to keep a person in their home when services can be provided to that person without having institutional care, without having to pay the additional cost of maintaining the institution and all that goes with that in terms of looking after the institution - the capital cost, the maintenance cost, the extensive staffing needs and all that goes with having a full-time institutional bed for an individual. There is clearly an increasingly important place for home care in our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, we were starting down the road a few years ago of ensuring that the kind of home care system that we were developing was going to be community-based and have some community controls. We saw on the Southern Shore, for example, developing a delivery system that would see a community-based agency provide home care for the residents of the Southern Shore. We saw in St. John's and in other areas there were community-based home care delivery systems that were either volunteer or not-for-profit organizations.

The first time the employees challenged the rates of wages they were being paid, this government took the position that it had no responsibility for the wages being paid to home care workers, wages that were being provided entirely by this government. They took the position that they were not the employer, they had no responsibility, that this was a matter between the agency and the employees. A totally ludicrous position and, in fact, an oppressive position because we are dealing with a situation where 98 per cent, if not more, of the people who were there were women, many of whom had recently worked in institutional settings where they were paid almost twice as much.

Government backed away from responsibility there. They backed away from responsibilities as employer and provider of the funds, and they backed away from their responsibility to create a home care enterprise and activity in this Province that was based not only on the dignity of the individual receiving the home care but the dignity of the person providing it. I called it, at the time, the development of a ghetto, a pink ghetto for women workers being paid very, very low wages without much in the way of protection in terms of benefits, in terms of the ability to collectively bargain. The government did nothing. In fact, they went further, and further exacerbated the situation and made things worse for home care workers by passing legislation that determined that the recipient of health care was in fact the employer. They declared, by operation of legislation, that the employer was to be the person who was receiving the care.

In certain isolated circumstances, particularly with disabled people who may have lifelong disabilities that require home care but they are quite able to look after their own affairs in other respects, this could be a good thing. In those isolated circumstances where they, in fact, would have more independence and more control over their own lives this could be a good thing, but that was not the purpose for which this government did it. The purpose was to prevent home care workers from collectively bargaining, obtaining better wages and working conditions, being able to ensure that they had an opportunity to work and build a life for themselves and their families, and support their families. That was why the government did this. It was a very cynical move by this government.

The whole issue of home care is one that is very important and dear to the hearts of this party. We believe that this government has gone down the wrong road, against the interests of working people, against the interests of health care workers, against the interests, in the long run, of the people who are to receive this care.

Not only do we now have a situation where people are being paid low wages; there are often not being paid at all. There is no protection for workers who work for an agency which goes bankrupt. This has happened three or four times, to my knowledge.

There was one on television last week. CBC television covered a situation where out in Conception Bay South an individual was providing a service - and I see the Minister of Justice paying attention. It is legislation under his department - judgement, enforcement and collection - where the wages of employees are not really adequately protected when someone goes bankrupt because there is no money there and priorities are not important. It doesn't make a difference who has priority if there is nothing there to pay the wages.

What we see happening in the home care field is individuals seeing an opportunity to make a few dollars by being the middle man and collecting one amount from the government for the service being provided and paying a lesser amount to the individuals who actually provide the service, and taking a cut for themselves.

We have seen situations where the employees do not get paid at all. We had a situation last fall where an individual was owed $2,000 in back wages by an employer providing home care service at very close to the minimum wage. That represented eight or ten weeks' work that individual was not paid for, and this government was unable to do anything to protect that person through the Department of Labour or through the offices under the Labour Standards Act. Nothing could be done under our current legislation. Yet, every cent of the money that was earned by these women was actually paid to somebody by this government. This government paid over the money for home care. The home care was provided. The people who provided the home care, the individuals who actually provided the care on the front lines, did not receive any pay for it and got no protection from this government. That is a scandal, an absolute scandal.

This government has turned a blind eye to that, ignored the needs of the people who are providing the care, ignored the fact that in many cases people are not only working split shifts - they may work an hour here, an hour there, an hour somewhere else, and have to drive their own vehicle back and forth from house to house and don't get paid travel time, don't get paid their expenses, and are paid an hourly rate for each hour of service that they perform. This is a scandal and it is going on right under our noses, right under the nose of this government with their complicity, with their involvement, with their negligence in terms of failing to protect the workers who are providing the service that this government is supposedly making available to residents of this Province and are seeing people being exploited and abused who are providing the service, and are doing nothing to protect those workers. That is the situation that home care workers face in this Province today.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is fast approaching an end and I wanted to concentrate on this one issue because I think it is important in that it demonstrates fully how this government is ignoring the real needs of ordinary people who have to work to provide the services that this government is charged with providing to the people of this Province, and how this government is prepared to set the rules of the game in such a way as to allow individuals providing this vital service to be discriminated against, to be abused by their employers, to be forced to work irregular hours, with no benefits, at low wages, and sometimes not get paid at all. This government should be ashamed of itself as to how women who work in home care are treated by the policies of this government and allowed to be treated by the negligence of this government in failing to protect them.

I call on all members opposite to look into this, to ask the Minister of Health and Community Services, to ask the Minister of Environment and Labour, to ask the ministers what protection is being offered. Ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women what protection there is for women who work in home care in this Province. Ask her why she is not insisting that they be adequately protected under the law. Ask her why she is not insisting that they be adequately protected and given an opportunity to fight for collective bargaining rights and improved wages and working conditions. Ask her why her government is not ensuring that the same protection that is provided to other public servants in terms of benefits, of access to proper labour relations, of access to pensions, of access to insurance, of access to workers compensation. The people working in home care do not have access to workers compensation; yet, four years ago, the Minister of Finance stood in this House and said that money was being made available to provide workers compensation for home care workers.

Now, no workers compensation for most home care workers. If they have an accident while providing home care, they have to sue the person in whose house they are working. They have to sue the person who they provide the care to. That is an abomination. What happens, of course, is that they suffer the losses of employment and the loss of an ability to learn a living without any compensation at all.

I see by the very judicious nods of the Speaker that my time is up so I will sit down and allow other speakers to join in the debate on the Budget Speech.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me some pleasure to stand and participate. I think we are coming down to the end of the Budget debate for 2000. I can see the Minister of Fisheries is over there saying, thanks be to God this is over with for yet another year. Can't you see his face over there? Just look at him. Yesterday he was in a more animated form but today he is more subdued.

MR. SULLIVAN: John, are you going campaigning in the federal election?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You have enough damage done. John, are you allowed?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) exposed to his Tory roots (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He is more subdued today.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I didn't know he was down working (inaudible) Brian Peckford.

MR. E. BYRNE: Actually called, I say to the Minister of Finance., called looking for his signature for some of his constituents. It is true, isn't it?

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance said of his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, that he didn't know of your Tory roots, where you actually were calling former Premier Peckford, looking for his signature for some of your constituents. I said that is true, isn't it?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He wants by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. EFFORD: I would like to clarify the difference between asking a former Premier for his autograph, his signature, on behalf of a constituent of mine, than belonging to the 500 Club. I don't belong to the 500 Club but I did ask for his signature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there are no cameras in the House today, because what we are witnessing now is a precursor and a prelude to what is going to happen.

For the record, we heard the Minister of Finance say that he did not realize that his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, was gone back to his Tory roots, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture had to stand up and say, for the record, the difference is that he never belonged to the PC 500 Club. Now, he wasn't referring to anyone over here. He wasn't referring to anybody on this side of the House.

MR. EFFORD: You are missing my point

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, there you go.

MR. TULK: Listen, just make sure of one thing, will you?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am trying to help out my good friend from Port de Grave.

MR. TULK: Make sure of one thing, that if Sheila doesn't come back we can (inaudible). I don't care about the rest of them. (Inaudible) throw him out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had better watch it; the two of them are probably going to be running for the leadership over there..

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Now, hold on. What you are seeing - hold on, I have to finish. The Minister of Fisheries, at some point in time - it could be next week, it could be next month, who knows? it could be five years from now, and some bright student from Port de Grave who is doing a political science major, maybe even an honours degree, is looking up the comments made by a former member, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and he is going to say: What was the Member for Port de Grave talking about on May 2, 2000, when he said: I was not part of the PC 500 Club? He is going to naturally assume - if he is a bright student, he is going to ask the next question: Who was it he was talking about? He is going to make the assumption that he must be talking about somebody on the Opposition side of the House, but he is not.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: He's not, I know he's not. Who he is talking about is actually the Minister of Finance himself, who was part -

MR. J. BYRNE: He is?

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes. Would you like to hear the story?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like to hear the story?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for St. John's North, the former, former member of the Progressive Conservative 500 Club nationally, ran for our party, the nomination, in the District of Pleasantville in 1989. Isn't that right?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I don't wish to discuss or debate or challenge any of the comments that the hon. member is making, per se. I simply would ask the hon. member to identify, in the course of his comments, what relevance his comments have to the Budget that we are now concluding debate upon, or else I would ask the Chair to lend some direction in terms of what would be appropriate verbiage for this member to be putting forward in his concluding remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is trying to figure out where your financial philosophy is coming from.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly right, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. We are trying to get a handle on the Minister of Finance's ideology, his philosophy, his view -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not yours. I will get to that in a moment.

In 1989, ran for the nomination in Pleasantville for the Progressive Conservative Party provincially. Three of them, Ms Noreen Greene-Fraize, Mr. Stephen Stafford, and one Mr. Lloyd Matthews, in 1989. The same Minister of Finance. Oh, the story gets better, much better. This is why the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture takes the opportunity occasionally to point to his Liberal roots as compared to some of his colleagues' non-Liberal roots; because when the time comes, their process in terms of electing MHAs or candidates or leaders is completely different than ours simply because the Liberal Party provincially has a card-carrying system. Correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't have a card. You have to be registered.

MR. E. BYRNE: You have to be registered. Six one way, half another. You don't have to have a card but you have to be registered. Only those true Liberals give them the opportunity to cull the list, if one needs to be culled, or bump up a date to freeze out somebody else, just in case somebody else could hijack it with non-Liberals. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we have to understand, and I am trying to explain to some future student of his from Port de Grave who is going to ask why he made the comment, so that they can truly understand that this minister has been a true Liberal most of his life.

MR. EFFORD: All of his life.

MR. E. BYRNE: All of his life. Not most, all?

MR. EFFORD: All.

MR. E. BYRNE: All of it. What he has attempted to do, he has attempted to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will say for the record that I am a willing accomplice here today because I am helping him out. He has attempted to do through the back door what he didn't want to do through the front door. He has just made a comment, knowing full well that I would expound upon it, enhance it, tell the story as it is, because he can't do that too much. He can drop a hint here or drop a nugget of information or truth here or there. So I don't mind helping out the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in his effort.

Now back to the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? No, not a slipway.

Let's get back to the story of the Minister of Finance, the story that the Minister of Finance really wants told. He lost the nomination, but it was a bitterly contested one because they had to go a second night. If I recall, it came down to a runoff between the Minister of Finance and Mr. Stafford, if I am correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not bad so far.

MR. E. BYRNE: The third candidate dropped off and supported Mr. Stafford. By the time this process was over with, there were only twelve days left in the provincial campaign. Correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly right. The Minister of Finance blames the process; he never had candidates in place. He didn't stop there. In 1992 I went to an annual general meeting of the Progressive Conservative Party. The first convention I went to was in 1987. It was hosted by Mount Pearl at the Newfoundland Hotel, and the Minister of Finance was there then. The first political convention I attended as a registered delegate was in 1987.

MR. TULK: Ed, could you start again, because I was into something else?

MR. E. BYRNE: No problem, I will get to it. Just stay tuned and you will get it all.

In 1987 I was a student. I was president of the local PC MUN club. I went to my first political convention as a registered delegate, and the Minister of Finance was there.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think so, Ed.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, absolutely. The first leadership convention I attended was in 1989 between Tom Rideout and Len Simms. I was a youth delegate, and the Minister of Finance was there, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, he was, as an observer. So his lineage goes back some ways. His days in the 500 Club began shortly after the 1984 election of a federal Tory government. In 1984, when the federal Tory government was elected, when the 500 Club was established - I think it was thirteen or fourteen months after the federal Tory Party became the government of Canada - the Minister of Finance was one of the first group of people to sign up in the Province for the federal 500 Club. I've gone back to 1984. That is as much as I can piece together from our own records.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he do in 1992?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am coming to that. In 1991 at an annual general meeting in Gander I got myself elected to the provincial executive of the Progressive Conservative Party as an area vice-president.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a bad move (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Actually, it turned out to be a pretty good move for a number of reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: For you, Ed.

MR. E. BYRNE: For some others too. In 1991 the process began. The leader at the time resigned and the party chose a new leader, and a new provincial executive was chosen. I happen to have had the honor and the privilege of being an area vice-president for the Avalon region. The process of election readiness began again in earnest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Process of what?

MR. E. BYRNE: The party's election readiness machine begin in earnest in 1991. I remember sitting down - the Liberals were elected in 1989 - and in 1991 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, the boat came in and your punt sunk. That is what happened to you in 1989 to you, wasn't it? The Liberal boat came in but the punt the Government House Leader was on sunk. He was one of the casualties. We will get to him in a minute.

Minister, are you taking notes? I am telling you, this really gets interesting now. In 1991 the election readiness machine was in place. There was a provincial policy team put in place. There were probably nine or ten different policy sub-groups off that dealing with economic policy, social policy, resource driven policy, issues that would bring us into social welfare reform, et cetera.

Now, I was not sitting on that part of it, but the leader of the day asked me to sit on the election readiness side of it, which included a number of committees. One of them was the provincial campaign. One of them was election finance, in terms of raising the necessary capital to run the campaign.

MR. TULK: Do I detect a storyline there?

MR. E. BYRNE: There are a couple of real good storylines here. If we only had cameras in the House today.

One of the other parts was the marketing campaign. So it was election finance, the logistics and the marketing, the messaging, all the things that you put together. This was 1991. So I was part of that provincial table. There was about twelve of us that were responsible for these logistical details.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name some of the other (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now, I am getting to it. Hang on. Hold on.

Now on top of that, as a way, so we had the policy side in place - the plan was in place, the finance sort of process of what was needed to run in a effective incredible campaign, certain targets. What could you do for $250,000 - I am sure the Liberal party goes through it as well - compared to what you can do for $500,000, $600,000, $700,000 or $1 million? Now, I mean I know this election we had to throw away $380,000 worth of ads and start again ten days in, but that is why it went over $1.5 million or $1.2 million, I think. That is another story for another time, a true story.

Anyway, so the last prong in the process in 1991 was the selection of party candidates. How do we go about it? There is only one person that should be in charge of the selection of party candidates ultimately, and that is the leader of the party. You can have people working for you and you can have some committees doing your work and talking to potential people, paving the way so you can see what road you should go down or not. There is only one person that should ever have the ultimate authority on the selection party candidates in any political system and that is the leader of the party. No one else.

In this case in 1991 the truth was the same and the case was the same. The leader of the day, Mr. Simms, to his credit, set up three different committees in the Province to look at candidate selection and candidate ID. These committees were representative people from the regions they were supposed to look at candidates from. There was a committee looking at the Avalon Peninsula - the eighteen or nineteen seats at the time - to try to attract candidates in those seats that we did not presently have anybody for. Or what subsequently became the reality in a couple of seats, where we had members who were not going to run again, as was the case with Bob Aylward in Kilbride - where I became the candidate - as was the case with Norm Doyle, and as was the case with Loyola Hearn who was replaced with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on.

Anyway, so there was another committee for Central Newfoundland and the Northeast Coast looking at possible candidates for districts that we did not presently have anyone for. Then the last committee represented basically the three seats at the time on the Southwest Coast: the Port au Port Peninsula, Corner Brook-Northern Peninsula, and there was one more for Labrador.

Now we are coming down to the final straws. It was 1992 and people were starting to make decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes. It was time to make decisions. It was time for candidates to make up their minds. One of the things that the leader of the day, Mr. Simms, predicted with absolute accuracy is that the premier of the day, Mr. Wells, would not call an election until the mandate had expired. Against all advice by some in his own Cabinet -

MR. SULLIVAN: Unconscionable to do otherwise.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. Four years almost to the day when he was elected is when he called it, so he had about eighteen months. About six months before the actual election was called in May there was a nomination meeting called in Kilbride. So I had done my work, had my group around me, and went through a nomination process, a pretty hotly contested one.

MR. TULK: Who ran against you?

MR. E. BYRNE: A lady Murphy ran against me. There were 1,492 people voted in a two-horse race on a stormy night in February.

MR. SULLIVAN: One was the front half, the other was the back half, hey?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it was a tight race. Anyway, the election process, or the party's process for seeking candidates -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I won by twenty-nine votes. We had a couple of buses off the road with the stormy weather, et cetera. The point of it was that the party's selection process had been engaged and well served in Kilbride. Our party is a little bit different. If you want to vote in a nomination process in our party you have to be eighteen years of age and live in the district twenty-four hours before it. It mirrors exactly the laws of an election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. No cards provincially. None whatsoever. We threw them out about twelve years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The view - and it is a correct one - is that the person who can organize the best, who has the fire in their stomach to bring out the most people, has the best chance of maintaining the district. That is why I won in Kilbride. There were people who had traditionally supported the Liberal Party. The campaign manager for the NDP in the 1989 election was one of my chief organizers. Fact!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) across the party line., and that doesn't (inaudible) argument you are pushing.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not pushing any argument, I am just telling a true story. I will get to a line of argument a little later on.

In a number of districts, that was one. Now, in St. John's North, here we come to it, a true story. Because I don't believe the Minister of Finance's memory would be very good. At the time, you see, I was a young fellow sitting in the fifth floor of the Opposition office. Not someone that would necessarily stand out in the Minister of Finance's mind. There were a number of people interested in St. John's North and the serious candidates were coming in to meet the leader. In St. John's North there was one very serious candidate who was going to contest, at the time, the Minister of Education, Dr. Phil Warren, and it was the Minister of Finance. Fact.

We had the party organizational manual done. He came in met with the leader. I was sitting in the Chief of Staff's office at the time of the meeting.

MR. MATTHEWS: Tell us how the meeting came about, though. Tell all the story, now, boy, Ed. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Only serious candidates. At the time of the meeting only serious candidates came in to meet the Leader. We had a number of people already nominated around the Province. I was one of them. Fabian Manning was another one of them. I think when an election was called Jack Byrne was another one of them. Loyola Sullivan was already elected in a by-election eleven months before the general election of 1993.

The meeting lasted about twenty minutes to twenty-five minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I wasn't at the meeting but I was right next to the office where the meeting took place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Close.

MR. E. BYRNE: Close, I was that close.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, now. It is not what I heard.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not what I heard, I say to the Minister of Tourism, it is what I saw that was more important than what I heard.

The meeting was over. The Minister of Finance - dressed very well then too, by the way, and he was tanned - came out of the leader's office with the big PC binder, organizational manual, and a commitment to run in St. John's North. As a matter of fact, the leader of the day came out - I was sitting in the Chief of Staff's office - and said: We have a great candidate for St. John's North, somebody who can take on Dr. Phil Warren. Guess what happened? Something that we had no control over, that was unexpected, that no one could foresee. Within three or four days of the meeting Dr. Phil Warren resigned from politics. The next thing we knew all we heard on the radio was: Lloyd Matthews running for the Liberal nomination in St. John's North. That is a true story. He left with our information and made the commitment. That is the truth as sure as I am standing right here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now see, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows all this, he knows all of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: May I ask you one question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: We are still waiting for the manual.

At the time, I believe, of the Liberal nomination, there was actually an employee of yours who ran for the nomination, another true Liberal, a Liberal of a lifetime. I remember at University, himself, Tony Marks and a few others, who, in the height of the Peckford days -

AN HON. MEMBER: True Liberals?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, absolutely. True Liberals, is what I say.

That is a true story, a very, very true story. The reason I say it is because I was, I guess, prompted and reminded. The Minister of Finance started this today when he talked about his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, talking about going back to his Tory roots and the Minister of Fisheries, in response, stood up and said: It wasn't me who was part of the 500 Club.

For the student who is going to look at this at some point in the future, I had not other choice but to explain exactly what the commentary was between two provincial Liberal Cabinet ministers. That is one story.

MR. EFFORD: Are there any more over there like that?

MR. E. BYRNE: I have helped you out enough for one day.

The Minister of Finance stood up on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and asked you to provide me with some direction on what this has to do with the Budget debate. What does this commentary have to do with the Budget debate? The question is this: What is the philosophy of the Minister of Finance as it comes to budget financing, or financing? Does he have one? is the question I have to ask. Does he have one, or does it depend on which day you are talking to him of what would be in that Budget? Is this his Budget or is it somebody else's Budget? Would it depend on the time of day, the month, the week, the year?

When the Minister of Finance asked me the question, I had to respond by saying that is the reason for it in terms of me - the side bar of the story was between you and your colleague, but the other side of it was - what is the philosophy that governs this Budget? What is the philosophy that governs this government? It is opportunism? Is that what the hallmark of this government is going to be when the history books are written? I am asking the question: Is it opportunism that governs the current provincial government in the Province today?

I believe it is. We don't have to look back very much. Let's have a look at it. During the leader's debate, in the 1999 election, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, stood up provincially - used the provincial public service, by the way, to analyze our document.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That was another story - but talked about how our tax increases were going to cost $1 billion. One day it was $650 million, the next day it was $880 million, and by the time it got to the third day it was $1.2 billion. It sounds like all of the projects the Premier is after announcing. As week by week goes by they get bigger, bigger and bigger. It is almost like the cucumbers you used to talk about when I first came to the Legislature in 1993. The truth is that what we had recommended and what we had suggested on tax relief was modest, it was costed out independently, and it worked.

I was in Corner Brook during the municipalities convention and the Premier's own Advisory Committee on the Economy recommended almost verbatim what we had recommended on payroll taxes, on tax cuts, and then shortly thereafter the Premier and the Minister of Finance, who seven months previously tore us apart for doing it, implemented a Tory tax policy. Was it opportunism? Certainly on that policy it was.

Let's talk about the privatization of lakes, rivers and streams. Do you remember that one? I remember being energy critic. In 1997, we released an energy policy for the party in a public press conference. We called for the elimination of what was called NUGS, non-utility generators system. The Minister of Tourism was then the Minister of Mines and Energy, and I remember debating in Question Period and private member's resolutions the merit of privatizing small rivers and streams - Northwest Brook -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, the timing wasn't off.

- the merit of it, and stood here day after day and debated why they shouldn't. Now, what happened? In the fall of 1998, the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy went before the cameras and guess what? There will be no more non-utility generators on lakes and streams in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what we wanted, but guess what? It came with a price tag, didn't it? A $1.4 million to Genergy Inc., if I am not mistaken, a little over $1.4 million.

MR. FITZGERALD: Northwest River?

MR. E. BYRNE: Northwest River yes, Genergy. A policy that we talked about almost sixteen months before, that could have saved the people of the Province $1.4 million, all of a sudden it became politically expedient to implement one of our policies. They did it and we applauded them for it; but, at the same time, in doing it, they had to haul out the public Treasury and pay $1.4 million to the company that they had co-opted, enticed, into developing Northwest Brook.

When we talk about opportunism - the Minister of Finance is going to set the record straight, are you? I didn't mean to hurt you. Don't be crying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Don't be crying and bawling over there. Come on, I didn't mean anything personal.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I have listened with interest and intent to the comments of the hon. member. I have decided to remain in my seat because there is a story to be told. I am going to ask that probably if it were appropriate even to have the Division bells rung so that everyone could hear my story, because my story will be very interesting; but I want at this point, lest I forget, to clarify for the benefit of the hon. member, lest he not sleep well tonight, that he has not hurt my feelings and, in my judgement, he has not damaged either my reputation or my future opportunities in any area of interest that might come across my way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was feeling bad. I am starting to feel bad now, because the Minister of Finance is a good man. I know him to be a fair man. I am inclined now, and prompted again, to come to yet another Liberal Cabinet minister's defense, which I am going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not too much now.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, hold on. I am going to come to his defense now. I am coming to your defense. I am. I am coming to your defense because I also want the record to show to this bright, young, potential student who will come from Port de Grave who may be pursuing a political science degree, or honours degree in political science, that he was not the only one.

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. E. BYRNE: He was not the only one. The Minister of Justice, former supporter of the Tory Party -

MR. J. BYRNE: Is he?

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely. The new Minister of Justice, a former supporter of the Tory Party. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a former Tory. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, at least on two occasions, ran for Tory nominations. The Minister of Environment - I am stating the facts. I am not trying to point fingers at anybody. The Minister of Environment and Labour, elected as a Tory.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let's call a vote.

MR. E. BYRNE: My colleague from St. John's East said: Let's call a vote right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. The former Minister of Social Services from 1993 to 1996 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Terra Nova.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I just pointed that out. In the 1989 leadership, a great big banner in her hand, a picture of it, the big Simms banner. Yes, I can see it now. The big Simms banner, the hat on, shirt, the whole regalia.

MR. FITZGERALD: Chasing around Morrisey Johnson where ever he went.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looking for money.

MR. E. BYRNE: Here it is. So, minister, I want to, for the record and in a very public way assure you that it was not a personal attack. I was not trying to do that. I was relating a story as I knew it. There are elements of truth, I suppose, in everyone's commentary. That is as I know it, but I did not want to leave you alone with respect to the commentary that I was making this afternoon at all.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Tourism was a supporter of our party.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Tourism was a supporter of our party.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, but he flirted with it. He was not in. You were not right there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Chuck does not flirt.

MR. E. BYRNE: You flirted with it, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: You do not flirt. Chuck, you do not flirt, do you?

MR. E. BYRNE: But he was never there. No, he never traveled down the road as far as half your Cabinet did.

MR. FUREY: Who?

MR. E. BYRNE: You didn't. You only flirted with it.

MR. FUREY: John Ottenheimer led me astray.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, but you got into a situation where friends were more important than politics, didn't you, boy? You can be - you know, that is -

MR. FUREY: That is right. I was helping my buddy.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, exactly. No one can take you apart for that. Nobody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: No one can take him on for that. All he was doing was helping a friend, so we cannot say that about the Minister of Tourism because you just cannot say it because it is just not true, is it, boy? It is not true. That is all I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. Call me after, I will give you the speaking notes. Read Hansard. Read all about it tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I'm after losing my train of thought now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Your cousin? You are not talking about your cousin. You can deal with that yourself. I say to the Member for Labrador West, I'm after losing my train of thought now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in defense of the Minister of Finance.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did that. I came to his defense. I mean I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh yes, hold on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes, I know, but that was a statement like: Yes, I am going to run but I do not know for who yet. I remember that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget, (inaudible) in between there.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I'm not going to forget anybody. It is not like me to forget anybody. There is a racket going on.

An old Tory told me a story. In 1972 the party first won the government. He said for twenty-three years true blue Tories laboured; particularly in the last eight years, from about 1966 to 1972, that was when the real hate was on for the Smallwood administration. This was a campaign manager for the 1959 election for the Tory party who told me this. He is still a trooper for the Party today. He was then a young man. He was about twenty-five, twenty-six years old. He said that in the first Legislature he was sitting in the gallery. You know, you talk about how the more things change the more they stay the same? This is very true, because the statement I'm about to make could be made about this government today. He said he was sitting in the gallery for the first Throne Speech after they won a majority government - so it would have been the second Throne Speech by Moores - looking down. There were four or five solid Tories there who had worked hard to see our party finally get the opportunity to be in government. He looked on the benches of all the Cabinet ministers and all the people that sat on the Tory side, looked around to some of our Tory colleagues, and he said: By God, you know, we have been taken over. That is what happened. Discontent set in. The politics of opportunism. The wave that it came in on was also the same wave that it washed out on. History is very important.

Mr. Speaker, it is now -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) roller skates (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I can go on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I would love to act as eloquent for another hour but I am in a position where I cannot.

MR. TULK: Do you know what I found (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. TULK: That Crosbie would get upset (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

I would like to speak more about the Budget, Mr. Speaker, but I am in a position where I can't. It is about 4:06 p.m. I have a meeting about 4:20 that I have to get to, but only for that I would love to go on. I could, that is the other side of it, but I will another day. I will have the opportunity another day to do it. I cannot say anything bad about the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods in this regard either, because he was always a supporter of the Liberal party, even on campus. Weren't you?

MR. K. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You were. All the crowd that stayed in Rothmere were Liberals. Now, they were good supporters of mine when I ran, but they were Liberals in Rothmere. There is no doubt about that. That is true as God.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation?

MR. E. BYRNE: We have already been there. Check Hansard tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Budget Debate?

MR. E. BYRNE: We are trying to figure out the philosophy and ideology behind this Budget. Is it rooted in anything at all? What philosophy or ideologies is it rooted in? Or is it just the politics of opportunism, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology? That is the level that we are debating right now. What is the mind thrust behind this Budget? That is what we are talking about. Any mind thrust of the Budget can only be seen in the people who put it together. So to extend the agreement to where it should be extended, when we get to understand the individuals who make the decisions about a budget then we know what the budget is. It is not the other way around, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you giving me the latitude that you have given me today to talk about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about all those Liberals (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: Where?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I think that we have made the case in terms of trying to understand where this Budget is coming from.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will take my leave and sit down.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say at the outset that while I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to go to a meeting, I would very much appreciate it if he could stay, but in as much as he can't stay I understand that. I would admonish him to pick up a copy of Hansard tomorrow or to talk to his colleagues and to get a more balanced view of the proposition that he is putting forward as a result of some comments that I intend to make in the House at the moment.

I want to say also that it is quite evident that regardless of what side of the House or where in this House we happen to sit down for a minute, we all have lots of company. Because it seems to me as though this have been a very roving group of politicians in terms of their political places from time to time. Now, I hate, I despise, I find it repulsive, I think it is abhorrent, I think it is despicable, I think it is unconscionable, to talk about people who are not here to defend themselves. Nevertheless, it is important, I believe on my account, that I set the historical record straight on a number of issues, a number of points, raised in the comments from the hon. member. Maybe at the end of my comments some of the members on the other side of the House, and all of the members on this side of the House, will understand why people on occasion do move from one location to another.

The hon. member made reference to an number of situations. Let me say to the hon. member, who is not here now, but to the members of the House, that the first introduction I had to the concept of being a Tory was when a group of Tories, if you like - and I cast no aspersions - from Conception Bay South who will remain nameless for purposes of protecting their identity because they are not now in public life - I am telling it exactly as it is and as honestly as I would if I were standing on a stack of bibles - a group of Tories represented by one called my office one day in about 1989 and said this to me: Do you run a business in Conception Bay South? I was in the manufacturing business at the time. I said: Yes, I do. He said: We think you might make, in some circumstance, a good politician. I said: Yes, I would. At least, I think I might. They said: I wonder if you would give some political consideration to running in the District of Conception Bay South in the 1989 election? I said: Yes, I might consider doing that, but this doesn't add up. You are Tories, and you are here asking me to run for a nomination in Conception Bay South as a Tory. There is a piece missing here. You have a Tory member in Conception Bay South. As a matter of fact, I know him. He is a customer of mine and on occasion he comes to my premises. His name is John Butt.

They said: Yes, he is our member. I said: What is happening here? They said: We want to say this to you. I said: What is that? They said: We don't think John Butt can win the District of Conception Bay South, and we want to take him out. We think that you might be a good consideration for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, that was the first conversation I had with a bunch of Tories about the concept of becoming a Tory. That was my first introduction to it.

Anyhow, trying to be a half-honorable man as I, for the most part, try to do, I said to the people: I appreciate it. As a matter of fact, we had lunch up at the Swiss Chalet and talked about it. I said: I appreciate your confidence in the proposition that I might made a good candidate for a political party, but John Butt - I don't know what he is to you; I know he is your member for your party, yes, and I don't know what else he is to you - to me, he is a customer and a friend and I wouldn't even consider the prospect or the concept of running against a friend who is a sitting member, even if you want to get rid of your own fresh and blood. If you want to get rid of your own flesh and blood, that is your problem. I am not going to be a participant in that.

That was the end of the discussion; that was the end of that conversation. It wasn't very long after that before I got a phone call. I was sitting down in my office. This is how it happened, as truthfully as I can portray it to you. I was sitting in my office and my phone rang. The call was from, at that time, the second-highest ranking Tory organizer in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I won't name him, but everyone here in the House would know who he was, if I said his name. He said this to me: I hear you had a visit from some of the Progressive Conservative Association members in Conception Bay South. I said: Yes, I did. He said: They asked you to run for the nomination against John Butt. I said: Yes, they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Hold on now. This is what is going on. If you want to know where I came from, or where I almost got tangled up, I will tell you about it. The man said this to me: You know, we never thought that you would have any interest in politics, but if you have an interest we have an nomination meeting in Pleasantville in five days time. I said: Yes, there is a gentlemen already announced down there for the last month or so, that he is going to run for the nomination in Pleasantville. He said: Yes, Mr. Stafford. I said: Yes.

This organizer said to me: Listen, we had no idea you would be interested in running. If you are interested in running, we want you to go down and see if you will take out this guy who has already announced he is going to run for the Tories.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. MATTHEWS: This fellow, Stafford. I said: Why would you want somebody to come and try to take out somebody who is running for you? He said: Well, a small matter. He has been crucifying our government on the Milk Marketing Board for the last two or three years and we don't want him. He is one of us, but we don't want him.

That is the second time this has happened by the crowd representing themselves as Conservatives. At that point, I said: Well, maybe that might be a consideration.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, on a point of order.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I know lots of Tories who live in Conception Bay South. In 1999, I got 2,100 more votes than the Liberal opponent against me. I don't know any of them who ever approached the minister. The minister is telling a great tale. I am enjoying the story he is telling. It is not as good as the leader on my side told, but I would like to ask him this question: When did he join the 500 Club? Was it before 1989 or was it after 1989? When did you pay your $500? Was it before that or was it after that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I digress. The question was: When did I join the 500 Club and when did I pay my $500? I have had to do this a number of times in this House and it is incumbent upon me to do it again, to defend my own honour and in the interest of defending the money that I spent out of my own pocket. I did not pay $500 to join the 500 Club. The price to get in the 500 Club was $1,000 and I parted with $1,000 of my hard-earned money.

Listen, there is no shame for somebody to make a mistake or spend money ill-advisedly once in life. When was the last time you went to a slot machine and wasted a few bucks? When was the last time you did something that was morally inappropriate? When was the last time that you spent a dollar that you should have been using to put shoes on your children's feet, bread on your children's table, gas in your wife's car, and clothes on your own back? When was the last time that you should have been doing that and spent an ill-advised buck? I ask you that question, and I don't want an answer because I don't want to embarrass the gentleman. I raise the point just to raise and prick his consciousness.

I digress. Let me get back to the phone call that interested me in Pleasantville. The message was, from the person who called me: We don't want this candidate. We want you to come and take him out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, the hon. member mentioned something very interesting. He said that in the nomination process for the Tories in Pleasantville in 1989 there had to be two meetings. Bear in mind that I exposed a group that tried to do their own in Conception Bay South. Bear in mind that I exposed how it was that I was called to try and take out another candidate. Why were there two meetings in Pleasantville? Because at the conclusion of the first meeting, the legal beagles for the party, whose names are very well-known from the party, the legal beagles for that party at that time looked at the result of the meeting and observed the shenanigans that were going on that night in terms of how a majority was achieved by my opponent, and called me the next morning and said the meeting of the previous night was so scandalously run that we have declared it is null and void and the results cannot be accepted. Our candidate cannot go forward.

A third incident, and then you wonder why there had to be a second meeting. Now, let me fast forward. -

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance would permit another question, seeing he thought there were shenanigans at the first meeting, why in the name of goodness did he go back and run in the second one?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. FRENCH: He could have took off the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: To that question, I can't answer as to why I went back, specifically, other than this: it might have something to do with my historical roots. I do believe in missionary work, and I do believe that while there is a cause to be cleaned up, while there is a soul to be turned in the right direction, while there is an effort that has gone haywire and should try to be sorted out, I suppose I felt I had an obligation to go back and help out.

Let me fast forward to the meeting that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked about in the office of his leader at the time. Yes, there was a meeting between myself and the hon. Len Simms, the previous leader of that party, but let me tell you how the meeting came about. Again, as true as if I were standing on a stack of Holy Bibles, sitting in my office one day, I got a phone call. The phone rang. A very good friend of mine was on the other end of the line, a very good friend of mine. I worked with him as a school trustee for many years in that association. He identified himself. You would all know who it was if you knew who ran for the Tories in 1989 in St. John's Centre. He said: Lloyd, you are a good friend of mine. I said: Yes. He said: I am calling on behalf of the leader of our party, the hon. Len Simms. He says he would like to meet you to discuss an issue that he wants to put before you. I said: Very good, I'm prepared to go and meet with anybody on a reasonable basis about anything. I came to the office and I had the meeting that the hon. member refers to. I have to confess I am not sure whether I took the black book home or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blue book.

MR. MATTHEWS: Blue book, was it? I may have taken a blue book home, I am not sure. I was not aware that ‘Steady Eddie,' ‘Kilowatt Eddie,' was eavesdropping around the corner of our meeting. That says something in itself about the hon. member, that after ten or twelve years to admit that he was eavesdropping on a private meeting, but forget that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I don't know. It was1987, 1988, or 1989, whenever.

In any event, we did have the meeting and the only commitment that I ever gave to Mr. Simms when I met with him on that afternoon was this: Mr. Simms, I appreciate your offer, I appreciate your confidence, and I appreciate your asking me to consider to be your candidate in St. John's North. I said: I will give you an answer within a week as to whether or not I have any intentions in that regard. I will tell you why I said that to him. Because I had already been approached by another individual who was representing himself to be the part of the process of identifying candidates for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I had a couple of visits. At that particular time, while I did not want to hurt the feelings of Len Simms by saying a flat no to him, I knew in my heart what was happening, where I was going and what my political future would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) permit a question?

MR. MATTHEWS: Not from you. Mr. Speaker, if I left with a blue book in my hand it was out of sheer courtesy.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said, (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: It may be true, I'm not sure. I wouldn't deny that I left with a book because I don't recall. If I could recall I would affirm or deny that.

The story I tell, Mr. Speaker, is this. I make those points to make this. The same story can be told by two different individuals and it can be two different stories. The fact of the matter was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today left out, very conveniently, many of the true facts as it related to the story he was trying to put forward. That is why I was wishing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could stay and hear the full story.

Given the interactions that I had occasion to have - and as I say again and I said it up front, I cast no aspersions, I know politics is politics - but given the level of solicitations and the high level of flirtings that were put forward by that party it is only a miracle, it is only by the grace of the good Lord, I would say, that I didn't end up being a blue runner as opposed to a red runner in 1993. It was only a miracle that I realized what was right to do and found myself representing the right party for the right reasons, with the right philosophy, with the right program, with the right leader, at the right time, in the right district, for the right purpose of getting elected to the House and trying to come in here and do the right thing.

That is a little history. There are a lot of details I could relate further. I could tell you about the eight-hour meeting that I sat in with two lawyers representing that party discussing what happened in the nomination meeting in the spring of 1989 in Pleasantville. I could tell about the details of that eight-hour meeting that we had and some of the things that were said and some of the things that were tried, but I am not going to get into that because I know that is all part of politics.

Suffice to say that politics is an interesting game and obviously I do not deny having had some flirtation with that crowd over there, as did my good friend and colleague the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The difference between him and me is only in the degree to which we flirted. That is all. He flirted one night. I flirted many nights. I am sure you understand the concept of flirting many nights.

MR. TULK: He was a one-night stand.

MR. MATTHEWS: He was a one-night stand. I have to tell you, Mr .Speaker, that flirting in politics was one area of flirtation that I engaged in because I was a flirtatious type, but I will tell you what, there -

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Minister of Finance and I cannot believe a word he has said today because obviously he is totally confused, or either he is trying to cover his backside when the leadership race is on between him and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Because when he first stood he said: I first came in contact with the PC Party in 1989. When we weaselled out of him when he paid his $1,000 for his membership in the 500 Club he said 1987, so he is either totally confused, cannot believe a word he said, or he is covering his backside for competition purposes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the contrary, as opposed to trying to cover one of the parts of my anatomy that you referred to, otherwise known as the backside, on the contrary I am thoroughly delighted. I am pleased. I owe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a debt of gratitude. I would not go so far as to say a debt of love, but certainly a debt of gratitude for raising the issue today because it allows me, in the context of the House and my colleagues, to deal with the matter once and for all. So that in the event there is another occasion this will not become a subject of contention, a matter of further consideration, or need any additional clarity. The matter has been laid out and the facts have been put on the table clearly in front of you.

I could go on from here and say things like this: From 1993 until the time that I joined this party and won the nomination and became a member I have never flirted with a Tory in any way, shape or form. I have to take note that there are people in this House today, and I will not identify what side even they may be on, who are currently flirting with Tories. Boat loads of Tories are in the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, when I was flirting as a young man in another area, I had a young lady. I happened to be flirting with her or she with me. At least I kept it down to one at a time, but people today are flirting with Tories by the boat load and it is unconscionable, it is incomprehensible and I do not frankly understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. MATTHEWS: Notwithstanding that, the hon. the member who might otherwise be identified as participating in that type of activity, I consider him today to be nothing more than a dear, a cherished, a blessed, a reliable friend, a confidante. He is singularly within my bosom. I reckon him to be a dear colleague and a dear friend. He is an individual who sits to my left in Cabinet but I have to tell you, he is in the right of my heart because he is a delightful man. He is a man that is honored and respected. I don't care how many Tory signatures he looks for, he will always be my friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: No, he is my tote load or my boat load and my boat load of tote load Tory friend man. He is the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I was about to make some comments this afternoon in closing the debate on the Budget, or speaking in the debate. I was about to make some references to the budget that was presented just one hundred years ago by the hon. G. Shea. I have a copy of his budget here. The facts and the events politically of more current vintage in my life took precedent over even references to this budget which is one hundred years old. I thought it was important to set the record straight on some of these accounts. As I say, I would expound more fully and give greater enlightenment on a number of issues, but I don't think it would be appropriate to take the time of the House to do that.

In the fullness of time, the hon. the House Leader suggests, I should probably do that. Bearing in mind that I was not prepared for this dissertation, and bearing in mind that I did not come to the House today with the intent of discussing the goings on that happened in bygone years in the party across the House, I felt it was important, notwithstanding that, to make these comments.

I know the Budget debate is coming to a conclusion, because I gather from the hon. the House Leader that the time for the Budget debate has pretty well run out. It is just about time to bring the motion or the vote to the floor of the House to consider the Budget. I think it is important before I sit down to first of all thank all of the hon. members of the House for their contribution to the Budget debate. I think, notwithstanding the partisanship of the nature of the business we are in, it is important that we all be heard with respect to our views on the Budget which is a very important, I suppose the most important, document that a government brings forward in any one year in its legislative calendar.

I would like to thank all of the members of the House for their contribution to the debate. I would like to thank the chairs of the committees who heard the Estimates of the various departments for their diligence and for their work in the budgetary process within the House of Assembly.

I want to ensure the hon. members on both sides of the House, but particularly because it was raised on that side of the House, that there is a philosophy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked: What is the philosophy behind Budget 2000? There is a philosophy behind this Budget. I will tell you very seriously that it is the philosophy that represents not only the position of the Liberals in this Province, the position of the people of the Liberals who sit in this House, but it represents, by and large, the views of the people of the Province that we heard in budgetary consultations throughout the Province before we prepared our document. It is the view, by and large, of the people that appeared before the Jobs and Growth strategy committee, chaired by the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

In this Budget we have reflected, we believe, what are the true values of the people of the Province. We have reflected, we believe, what are the priorities of the people of the Province. We have reflected, we believe, what are the appropriate directions for us to be taking as a government on a fiscal basis so as to ensure that our house remain sound, our Budget remain whole, and that our Province is in a position to move forward and reap benefits from the resources that we have and the revenues that we see futuristically with respect to the developments, particularly offshore.

I would just say, in conclusion, thanks to everybody who has been helpful to me in the budgetary preparation process. I think people who are sometimes overlooked or not mentioned but are very critical to the lives of all of us, particularly on the government side of the House as ministers, are the officials in the department. I want to say thank you and pay tribute to the officials in the Department of Finance and the officials in the Treasury Board Secretariat who are heavily involved in the preparation of the Budget.

I believe the Budget, as represented by the document that we presented, is one that has been well received by the Province. I think, by and large, this Budget will serve the people of this Province well during the next twelve months and beyond.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have received a Message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

To the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2001. By the way of further supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ____________________________

A.M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Message be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

 

 

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 3, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service."

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2001 the sum of $2,024,467,300."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $3,142,366,500 for the 2000-2001 fiscal year be carried.

I further move that the Committee report that the Committee has adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, and that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those opposed, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $3,142,366,500 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the year 2000-2001 fiscal year and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on Supply reports that it has considered the matters to it referred and reports that the Committee has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the main supply bill, Bill 3, be introduced and read a first time.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 3)

On motion, bill read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order paper. (Bill 3)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think this is in the name of the Minister of Justice, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act." If the minister is prepared to introduce that bill, Bill 1, Order 3, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act". (Bill 1)

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the bill referred to here, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, in particular one section of it, is pretty straightforward. In fact, there are a couple of housekeeping matters.

The first matter is dealt with in section 6.(1). There basically are three types of legal entities, shall we say, in existence in this Province: either an individual, a partnership, or a corporation. Albeit the Public Utilities Act has been in existence for quite some years, it hasn't officially been termed to be a corporation; albeit, it has acted as if it is duly incorporated and performed all the acts that a corporation would. A legal opinion rendered some years ago suggested that, for technical purposes, we should have the legislation amended to make it a corporation. Hence, the purpose of this amendment here.

Secondly, in section 6.(2) there is an addition to the existing Public Utilities Act such that any persons appointed to the Board , an officer, a member, or an employee of the Board, would be immune from any action taken against them provided, of course, they performed their duties as a member of the Board in good faith.

That is certainly a pretty standard provision today in any government body or agency. Provided you undertake your duties in a good faith manner, you should be provided with immunity from any legal action as a result of the actions that you have so undertaken.

That is the gist of this legislation. As I indicated, it is pretty straightforward and is housekeeping responsibilities.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister is quite correct in his comments. Number one, that the issue is largely one of housekeeping; and, secondly, his brief commentary with respect to 6.(2) dealing with the concept of good faith. That is the traditional wording that we would find in legislation of this sort, that indeed individuals who are appointed to any board or any tribunal, who act in accordance with the rules and regulations and conduct themselves in good faith, obviously are then exempted from any personal liabilities.

Clearly the legislation is, in essence, one of housekeeping and one that, upon quick review, obviously we would have no difficulty in supporting.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, and in accordance with the discussion with my learned friend -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: If you want to do that, go right ahead.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I close the debate on second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has closed the debate.

On motion, a bill, "An To Amend The Public Utilities Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 1).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am tempted to call another one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I bet you would break before I would, because you hate this place.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn. Before we do, tomorrow we will be debating the private member's bill put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.