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 50 th 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!

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 Qubcois 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 Mi