The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

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

I wish to recognize the achievements of a constituent of St. John's South, Harold Druken, who was scouted at the age of thirteen and given a scholarship to attend a private school in Boston to play hockey. He was picked up by the AHL where he consistently had been a high performer. On the Vancouver farm team he was considered to be a valued player and, in fact, was the top goal scorer in the league. He was advanced to the NHL and is now playing for the Vancouver Canucks, and at present has the highest plus-minus score on the team. He has always shown his pride as growing up in Shea Heights and attending St. John Bosco School, and he has made the residents of the area, and indeed of the Province, proud of him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am extremely pleased to inform Members of the House of Assembly that on March 24 Justice Keith Mercer ruled that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation did not exercise any bias in the award of the Straits ferry contract to Labrador Marine Incorporated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: The judge has recognized that it is in the interest of the public to have the M/V Apollo ready for the Strait of Belle Isle service on the originally scheduled start date, which is May 1, 2000. Because of the judge's decision, government can now meet its commitment to the people of the Labrador Straits area who have asked for an improved and expanded service.

Mr. Speaker, Justice Mercer recognized the tenders submitted by the plaintiff was rejected on more than one ground. He ruled that government acted in good faith in considering requests from bidders to issue addenda to the tender invitation. He stated that all bidders were given a fair opportunity to bid on the tender as revised and he therefore rejected the argument that there was a breach of duty of fairness in this regard on the part of the department.

Justice Mercer concluded that "the requests for changes to the specifications were considered by government for its stated reason of ensuring receipt of tenders and that government's decision to issue the addenda was taken with regard only to relevant factors respecting the provision of an enhanced ferry service for the forthcoming season."

The plaintiff in the recent proceedings alleged that the department acted unfairly in not granting them an extension to the tender deadline. Justice Mercer determined that "Government was motivated to deny the request for an extension by its concern to meet the stated objective of having a new service operational by May 1, 2000."

The judgement stated: "...I conclude that all potential bidders had a fair opportunity to bid on the Invitation to Tender, as revised by the addenda issued on December 10, 1999." The judge also said: "Accordingly I reject the contention of Puddister Shipping that the duty of procedural fairness was breached by either issuance of the addenda or denial of the request for an extension to the closing date."

At the time of the tender closing, the department believed, from the documents provided by Labrador Marine Inc. and from the expertise of professionals in my department, that the M/V Apollo would be able to dock safely at the Blanc Sablon wharf. We subsequently issued a letter of conditional acceptance to the Labrador Marine Inc. While the judge indicated that the decision to issue the letter of acceptance was unreasonable given the vessel length specification and the facts before the department at that time - January 20, 2000 - I would like to stress that this was a letter of conditional acceptance. The department did not sign a contract with Labrador Marine Inc., but instead issued this letter of acceptance based on eight conditions. These conditions must be met before the final contract is awarded. It is to be noted that the vessel does indeed meet the length specifications. Mr. Justice Mercer stated: "...there may now be a reasonable basis for concluding that it [the M/V Apollo] is capable of meeting the specification."

A couple of weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition stood in the House of Assembly and made accusations that the M/V Apollo had serious problems, such as asbestos. The owners of the M/V Apollo had to publicly refute the member's comments, but not before the damage had already been done. Not only is it wrong for others to make accusations without having done their homework, it is completely irresponsible.

The Opposition, in its desire to have my department's decision quashed, has offended many individuals and groups in the Straits area and their actions prove they have a blatant disregard for the needs of people and businesses in this area.

As I have mentioned in the House before, officials from my department and I spent a significant amount of time scrutinizing these tender documents and followed due diligence as required. We know we made the right decision, the judge knows we made the right decision, and the people of the Straits who need this service know we made the right decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me say, first and foremost, that the questions raised in Question Period last week by myself on behalf of the Opposition were an attempt not to squash a decision, I say to the minister, but an attempt to get at the truth. When it comes to the public tendering process in this Province in the last six or seven years, members and ministers on that side of the House have nothing to brag about or lecture us on this side of the House, let me tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say to the minister as well, you have signed enough cheques in excess of $50 million to prove what I am saying is right.

Let me say to the minister this: With respect to the decision that came down on Friday, it is also very clear - let me quote for him from the decision as well, because the door is open. The judge said: Council for government referred to the invitation for tender for its definition of letter of acceptance and for Section 42, contract. I conclude that though verification of compliance with the specifications was not required prior to the formal contract, there nevertheless existed an obligation toward the letter of acceptance only to a bid which appeared, on reasonable grounds, to meet the specifications. The evidence including that relating to due diligence - it talks about. He says: I find, therefore, that the department failed to apply relevant facts, namely the compensatory methods proposed by Labrador Marine Inc. to the precise term of the specification. It was accordingly unreasonable to decide that the M/V Apollo was capable of meeting the specification. The letter of acceptance was issued "to a non-compliant bidder".

The judgement also, I say to the minister - and I am sure that the department of Justice will have briefed him or will continue to brief him, but the decision itself leaves the door open for further civil action.

The other thing that is interesting about this decision is that the plaintiff did not have to bear any of the courts costs. So the story on this particular contract is far from over.

I will say also, Mr. Speaker, that the attempt and continued attempt by government any time the Opposition - myself or any member of the Opposition - stands up and asks difficult questions on difficult subject matter to this government, the first thing that comes back is fearmongering. Irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will say this: In terms of the issues raised in this House last week -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: No leave?

MR. TULK: Unless you tell us about (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions asked in the House last week, primarily they centered on the review for the public tender award. There were other questions asked to the minister, namely, dealing with the electrical component of the M/V Apollo, and that borne out to be true, namely, dealing with asbestos; because we had it on reliable information - and I say this very clearly, very honestly -.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now. Would you like me to finish?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, very much.

With respect to -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to finish, Premier, or would you like to phone me on Open Line again and we can go at it right there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: With respect to the other issues surrounding the M/V Apollo, there were questions made by myself with respect to electrical which borne out to be true. There were questions based upon information provided to the Opposition, which we felt legitimate, which were borne out not to be true, and I say that in all honesty.

In terms of issues in this House -

PREMIER TOBIN: Which were not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on a second; that is what I said.

Issues in this House - that, when we raise issues from time to time, each and every day, we do it based upon the best available information we have. Where it is seen or where it is borne out or proven to be not true, then fair enough. I just said it was not - obviously from the Woodward Group of Companies it was said that asbestos was not a problem. Obviously it was not true, but I will say this -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible) apologize?

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

The next morning on CBC Open Line - CBC Radio did an interview based upon the questions the day before, and made it very clear that the service provided to the people in the Straits and on the Labrador is in the best interest. That is what our interest is, in providing a fair, legitimate service. We made that very clear to everybody in the Province, but I will say this: When it comes to decisions affecting public tender, this Party, and as the Opposition, will not stray from our responsibility to ask the tough questions to government when they need to be asked. Obviously on this issue, based upon what the judge said, not based upon what I said, this particular issue surrounding the application or awarding of this contract is far from over.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, just a short point of order and that is simply to say: Methinks thou doth protest too much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me start off by saying there is no question that the people of the Straits definitely need a new ferry and a new ferry service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: There is no question about that, and it is something they deserve. It is their mode of transportation that they depend on for many things, but I don't think it is fair for the minister to respond today by way of a Ministerial Statement, as if they have been completely exonerated by the courts. It is clear in the judge's verdict that this government may still be on the hook, to be taken to court by Puddister's. It may be another example of where this Province will be paying again twice for the same service. I think that is important, and I think the minister is quite aware of that.

Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday past, the provincial and territorial ministers of health met in Montreal to assess their state of readiness for a meeting the end of this coming week with the federal Health Minister, the hon. Allan Rock.

The federal government has been speaking publicly about some new initiatives as it relates to the future of health care. Over the last several years the federal government has highlighted pharmacare and home care as two of these examples of new initiatives.

While these two areas may be new in the minds of the federal government and the federal health minister and his counterparts, these are areas which we in Newfoundland and Labrador have been supporting for many years from provincial source revenues. Next fiscal year we will spend almost $70 million on pharmacare or drug subsidization for some 100,000 individuals in our Province. This is an increase of 25 per cent in funding since 1994-1995. On the home care front, health and community services boards will spend nearly $40 million on seniors and persons with disabilities. Since 1994-1995, our spending in this area has increased by almost 50 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the federal health minister understand the commitment that this Province has made to health care and to areas which the federal government may become involved in the future. In the past five years alone, we have increased our health and community services budget by 25 per cent. In this year's budget alone, an extra $136 million is budgeted in new spending for health care initiatives; however, we cannot continue to add millions to our system every year. It is very difficult to maintain the publicly funded system we have come to respect so well.

When we meet as ministers with the federal government later this week, I will be impressing on Minister Rock our concern over the sustainability of the current health system, and I will welcome any areas where the federal government may want to work in partnership to provide a share of the cost of delivering services - such as pharmacare and home care.

We are interested in effective and efficient use of our public health care dollars, and we will prove to the federal government that there are limited opportunities for efficiencies remaining in our system. That is why we have carried out reviews of our health boards in the past, and that is why we have set up a special review team to again work with the boards to identify core services, priorities, new directions and remaining efficiencies.

We view the work of the review teams and the boards as essential in identifying ways to optimize our health system, and begin to define the system of the future.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is willing to work closely with the federal government if the goal is the long-term sustainability of the system. We may need to continue to adapt our current system to meet the needs we are currently faced with, and will be challenged with in the future, such as increased home care. If our publicly funded health care system is to continue to serve us well as it has in the past, it will need sustainable funding from the Government of Canada as a prerequisite.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep hon. members abreast of what occurs at this upcoming meeting with the federal government, and any other developments as it relates to the future of health care in the Province and in the country.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought when this government did a study to review the efficiency of health care boards in this Province - they restructured health care and formed eight institutional boards and four community health care boards - they were looking at efficiencies in delivering health care.

I say this to the minister. How is a review now going to monitor the efficiency of decisions like giving - take Trans City Holdings, for example. I will get a few more current examples. There it has cost over $30 million in the long term. How one of those that was built under Trans City Holdings in St. Lawrence, for example, has one-quarter of its beds never opened to this day. We have been paying interest on that debt since the early 1990s. There are areas in the Burgeo hospital from Trans City Holdings that are not even open and we are paying interest on debt. How is he going to address a review when you never went to public tender like dozens of cases with the health care corporations around this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: How is he going to address the savings by giving it to higher bidders? One bid alone, $417,000, did not go to a lower bidder. How is he going to address the capitalization?

I will use an example in Gander. There was $20 million spent with another $20 million over the next two years. We will have $40 million spent and not one service is obtained by the people in Central Newfoundland. It is bricks and mortar, a steel structure. Why are you capitalizing over twelve and fifteen years in a structure? Anybody in business today would be gone bankrupt if you capitalized an expansion over ten or fifteen years.

They are the efficiencies that your review will never look on, I say to the minister. They will never get to assess these because they are departmental inefficiencies and not (inaudible) inefficiencies in many of these examples.

There is no accountability in health care. You refuse to bring in accountability legislation. Other provinces are miles ahead of us in accountability legislation. We are three years trying to get a financial report from the Western Health Care Corporation. You said, the previous minister said, and they all said: We are going to have an Atkinson report and release it publicly. The Cabinet has stopped the release of that report and passed it back to the Western Health Care Corporation because they don't want the inefficiencies to be made public. That is what is happening in health care.

You have to get you act together, minister. You have to start realizing it is the provincial government that has responsibility for delivery of health care in this Province. There are only two Liberal health ministers left now, Minister Rock and the current minister. Or ‘Pops' or ‘Pop,' he is being called. So we have ‘Pop' and we have ‘Rock,' I say now. It is not the right music to our ears in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have to get our act together now, I would say, and the minister must do something to get the proper delivery of health care in our Province.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Home care is probably going to be one of the fastest rising concerns in this Province as we go in to the years to come with an aging population. I think it is only appropriate that we concentrate and come up with a plan that will certainly meet the needs of people of the Province.

I would like to point out to the minister, though, that without going to Ottawa there is one area of concern for home care workers that he can address right here, and that is affording workers' compensation protection to workers who provide home care that they have promised to do for years now and have failed to act. I think that is a good start for this Province to take.

The other thing is the drug patent. The fastest rising cost in the health care system today is the cost of prescription drugs. I think our minister should remind the federal minister that it was a promise of their government that they were going to review that when they ran the 1993 election campaign. They have failed to revisit that, they have failed to address the problem that the drug patent act is causing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - to the cost of medicare. I think the minister here would be well served to remind the federal minister of that promise that was made back then.

Thank you.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I stand today in the House to congratulate Landscape Newfoundland and Labrador on a very successful trade show over the weekend. In addition, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Newfoundland and Labrador Horticulture Council, an organization that represents sectors of this industry.

It is the dedication of the business community and marketing such as trade shows and conferences that helps keep us in touch with new horticulture initiatives and issues that are important to the industry.

The rapid expansion in consumer acceptance and consumption of medicinal and nutraceutical products has created significant opportunities in the production and processing of many of these medicinal herbs. There was recently a Nutraceutical Conference held in St. John's with over 160 registered participants that was extremely well attended. It is an extremely exciting opportunity for the future.

In support of the medicinal and nutraceutical sectors, the department has established a number of trials and on-farm demonstration plots across the Province in an effort to evaluate the potential of a selection of medicinal herbs for commercial production. The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods believes that the Province is well positioned to benefit economically from this growth industry and create new employment.

The traditional horticulture sector has a long history in the Province. Newfoundland and Labrador farmers grow a high quality product. There were over 1,900 acres of crop planted in 1998. With the increase in landscape, gardening and nutraceuticals the horticulture industry has tremendous growth potential.

We have heard from the major retail chains that they want local product. This industry is expanding to meet that demand. I was pleased to have the opportunity on Friday to open the Landscape 2000 show and very impressed with the quality of the exhibitions and the high level of attendance over the weekend. This sector is expanding and we look forward to a productive season for the industry, and for future creation of new jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say to this is that a big congratulations has to go out to the farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Under the conditions that they have to do their business in this Province today, with the rising costs of fuels and things in their business, it is important that we do everything we can to help our farmers and enhance the industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the earlier part of the minster's statement is ditto to what he said.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also had the pleasure of attending Landscape 2000 over the weekend, and it was a very good show, showing that there is a lot of interest in this particular sector, and a lot of people in this Province who are very active in promoting their own products and services in this area. I look forward to aggressive programs by the minister - not just encouragement, but aggressive programs by the minister - to get into some of this import substitution in horticultural products in the large chain stores and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - see what programs the minister has to encourage those particular activities.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I could, please.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister on a point of privilege.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise again an issue I raised at one point last year. Having full admiration and respect for the rules of the House, I understand that one of our one fundamental principles in this Legislature is that we are to accept statements made by members in the Legislature as being factual. We are not allowed to suggest anyone is lying or misleading the House, and that is a rule I have always lived by.

I would like to give an example as to how I believe my privileges, and all of us as members in the Legislature, have been abused, based on a comment from Wednesday, March 23, less than a week ago, in a CBC Newfoundland and Labrador report where the Opposition House Leader and health critic indicated: I have never said there were $100 million worth of inefficiencies in the system, says the Opposition House Leader and health critic, the Member for Ferryland.

I would just like to point out from Hansard comments actually made in this Legislature by the hon. member, starting on March 18, 1999. If I might just take a minute, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is critically important.

To continue, "I say to the minister, and to the Premier too, we have had people from all over this Province today, the health care system - the problem is not necessarily a shortage of dollars. The system, the way it is is operated and administered today, I can tell you, in a grossly inefficient system." It is a grossly inefficient system, Mr. Speaker. Inefficiently operating health care boards are here in this Province. They are grossly inefficient, Mr. Speaker. If you were doing - he was saying this to the government - what is needed, and using the dollars where they are supposed to be spent - "Because I can tell you that $100 million will not fix health care in this Province..." the way this government is wasting money in the system.

That is on March 18. On March 24, again from Hansard, the record of this House, in a debate, the Opposition health critic said: "There are millions of dollars wasted in our system today; scarce resources, I might add, very scarce resources, that should be used to improve the health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians." Not $100 million but millions of dollars.

On March 25 the Hansard reports he said: "[the system] is gobbling up dollars inefficiently."

These are his words, Mr. Speaker, in Hansard: "The Auditor General refers to it. Maclean's Magazine tells us that 40 per cent of the dollars spent" in the system are inefficient. Further, he says: "That is $30 billion dollars in the country. It is hundreds of millions in this Province, and there is nothing done to fix the problem..." That is a direct quote in Hansard in this legislature from the critic opposite.

Then I would like to know how are we supposed to sit here and suggest that we take that as being the truth when we hear from the media: I've never said there were $100 million worth of inefficiencies in the system, says Opposition House Leader and health critic, the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to know, if my privileges are not being breached, how it is I am supposed to sit in the Legislature and not suggest that there is either a misrepresentation or a lie being told in the House if what is being said outside the House is the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out for the Government House Leader, but in particular for the Minister of Health, that I know his feelings have been seriously damaged by the Opposition House Leader, but I am sure he will get over it. In getting over it, I would suggest that the only member who has seriously attempted to breach privileges here is the Minister of Health, because he has put on a show this afternoon for the media to try to create something that does not exist.

I want to refer him to Beauchesne §31(1) where it says: "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Also, §31(3) - and this is what is really conclusive, Mr. Speaker, but not to predetermine what you may rule - says: "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege." The minister knows this. The reason he stood today is someone shuffled a paper over to him about five minutes before he got up and said: Can you do this to try to create a story that does not exist?

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will deliberate on the question of privilege. It is not the first time that the Minister of Health or the Member for Exploits has tried this tactic and I am sure it won't be the last.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the question raised by the minister under advisement.

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

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

My questions are for the Premier. About eleven months ago in the House I asked the former Minister of Energy, dealing with a transmission line from the in-feed, and a negotiation with the in-feed, between the Province and the federal government. I asked at that time, and the record of Hansard clearly shows, that my information indicated that the federal government had not at any point in time bought into the notion of assisting the Province with financing such an in-feed.

This is what the former minister said at the time: The transmission line issue, the in-feed to the Island, is a matter solely to be done by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with some assistance from the Government of Canada, if it can be arranged. We are still in those discussions.

I would like to ask the Premier this. In light of your recent statements that now there is no transmission line, and that you are moving towards what you figure to be a natural gas line so there is now no need for a transmission line, can you update the House - and through the House the people of the Province - on: Has the federal government said no, outright, to you and to the government and thus to the people of the Province on helping or assisting in providing a transmission line to the Province that would provide a continuous, uninterrupted supply of cheap electrical power forever and a day?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not addressing the real question. The real question is - that I would have thought the question he would have put is - this: If a transmission line makes sense and if a transmission line is efficient, will the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador support it? Or does the government have a position like that adopted by the Conservative Party at its convention - in which, by the way, interestingly enough, the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to talk about - which is whether it makes sense or not, whether it is cost-efficient or not, we are going to build it even it means we spend every cent of profit out of a future hydroelectric project?

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition, that although that may be the position adopted by the Conservative Party after a visit by Brian Peckford who came down from British Columbia, dropped it on the table of the convention, left a little leadership behind, scurried back to British Columbia and left the Leader of the Opposition to explain it, that is not the position of this government. We will only proceed with a project if it makes sense for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What a change in position since March 8, 1998. The Premier's chief negotiator for the Province publicly stated that the transmission line was one of the fundamentals of achieving a Lower Churchill agreement, one of the fundamentals that needed to take place. The Premier himself acknowledged it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier also knows the feasibility study, and former ministers, have said that the transmission line is economically feasible over a twenty to twenty-five year period.

I would like to ask the Premier this question. In view of the fact that you will not answer why it was so important two years ago and it is not now - it seems that you have given up on the transmission mission in favour of a natural gas pipeline from White Rose development - is that to say that the position of you and your government then is that you are in favour of a gravity-based structure for the development of White Rose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition still has not addressed the fundamental question. Government said that a transmission line to the Island is important enough that it needs to be studied and that is what officials, both federal and provincial, have been doing and are doing and will reach a conclusion very shortly on. Because we do not believe, unlike the party opposite, that you blunder into something on the basis of: We are going to do it whether or not it makes any sense. Exactly the same criteria would apply with respect to the mode of development for White Rose.

In case the Leader of the Opposition does not realize it, there are going to be public hearings. We are getting close to April, but it is late March. In September the C-NOPB will hold public hearings on the mode of production for White Rose. We will have a proposition, one would assume based on what Husky has said, on an FPSO and we will have a proposal on the table, I suspect, based on what Mr. Tom Tatham and his group are saying, on a GBS.. There will be a set of public hearings six months from now.

If the Leader of the Opposition is asking the government to pronounce itself on a mode of development prior to hearing the case being made by either party, we will not do that. We are going to respect the process.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the Premier's response because he has pronounced himself on an in-feed when he has just admitted publicly that the negotiations between this government and the federal government have not concluded. You have just said, that negotiations on the in-feed between the federal and provincial government have not concluded. Yet you have been out saying we do not need a transmission line because it is not economically feasible.

I will ask you this question. Using your own words, Premier, of course, if negotiations between the Province and the federal government have not yet concluded, then how have you arrived at an analysis that a transmission line is not economically feasible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I have said. What I have said is not that negotiations - and the Leader of the Opposition should pause, stay calm, listen, reflect before he speaks. I said there is a study ongoing between both levels of government to determine whether or not such a line is ultimately feasible.

What I have said many times is that we are not prepared to blindly subscribe to a transmission line unless, at the end of the day, that transmission line makes sense to Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, if that is truly the cheapest and most secure form of long-term power for the Province then that is something we would promote and support; but if it is not something that, in the long run, gives us the cheapest form of power for our Province we would have no interest in it. Likewise, when it comes to a question like offshore development and mode of production, you do not prejudge a process in March that does not even go to public hearings until September.

The Leader of the Opposition the other day in the House said to me: Why doesn't the Premier just rule out any other option right now and name one option as being a bottom line position of the Province? Mr. Speaker, he said that fully six months before there is even a public hearing on the question! The Leader of the Opposition should lead by first of all listening and considering all of the options before coming to hard and fast conclusions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, sound public policy dictates that we do things in the public interest. What this Premier and this government fail to understand or operate under is that not one of us, not one single one of us in this House or anywhere, is as important as all of us, I say to the Premier.

I want to ask you this question, in view of the fact that you have made a statement that the transmission line, in your view, is not economically feasible - you have said that publicly - in view of the fact that natural gas pipeline is what you are anchoring for and betting on, I would like to ask you this question, in terms of statements made this morning by Husky Oil that in order for a natural gas pipeline to proceed, that their analysis would require 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - they have contended that there is only 1 trillion cubic feet within that find - has the Department of Mines and Energy, or anybody in Executive Council, done any preparatory work in terms of preparing government for what may come out of it in terms of the decision that you will have to make on behalf of all of us? Has any preparatory work been done related to that statement by Husky Oil?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I heard the comments that were ascribed to Husky and they refer to the viability of having natural gas as an export product into the New England market. For purposes of having sufficient natural gas to export into the New England market, the amount of natural gas that will be required for that is a far larger number than what would be required to build a pipeline to the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador to use natural gas here, to strip off liquids and to support other industry and, for that matter, to displace current sources of power; for example, Holyrood. So the Leader of the Opposition has to distinguished between the amount of natural gas required to go to the Northeast New England market - that is probably 5 trillion or 6 trillion cubic feet - and the amount of natural gas that may be required, which would be substantially less, to justify a pipeline or a connection to the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador itself, and in the first instance to use gas here on the Island.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has now asked the right question: Is the government -

MR. J. BYRNE: Which is it? Who do you support, (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry, the Member for Cape St. Francis is saying what?

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Cape St. Francis wants to ask a question. I would be glad to incorporate it into my answer to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Do you want to have the member put the question, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the fifth place party headed up by Joe Clark. I will be supporting the Liberal candidate in St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I could support the third place party led by the NDP, or we could support the second place Opposition Party led by the CRAPP - I mean, the Alliance - or the Official Opposition led by the Bloc, but we are going to support the Government of Canada led by Jean Chrétien.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier did not answer the question. He was looking for a diversion and some of my members, in an impromptu way, provided him that; but I will ask him this question. The provincial government has veto power, as he knows, under the terms and conditions of the Atlantic Accord with respect to development. If development proceeds on White Rose where all of the field is not developed in terms of the significant reservoir of natural gas and oil, and it is only developed to take oil, it can be compared to high-grading, similar to that which Inco initially wanted to do with the ovoid and not explore it; that is my understanding.

I would like to ask the Premier this: In view of the preparatory work that you were about to tell me you had done, does the Department of Mines and Energy or Executive Council - has it recommended a position to government to take ultimately that would see all of that field developed the way it should be developed, which would be in accordance to the benefits of the people of this Province? In other words, has the Department of Mines and Energy and Executive Council -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - recommended to you, as Premier, and your Mines and Energy Minister, that a GBS type of development would be in the best, long-term interests of the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was about to tell the Leader of the Opposition, before I was so rudely interrupted by the Member for Cape St. Francis, that in fact there are -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, does the Member for Cape St. Francis have a question he wants to put?

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say before I was so rudely interrupted again, the government, in conjunction with the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association,

otherwise known as NOIA, is conducting studies, jointly sponsored, independently provided by outside experts, into the best way to proceed with respect to the development of natural gas, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is our want - we are taking the trouble to seek not only the advice of the Department of Mines and Energy, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to, but to seek outside expert advice, to give us the advice as a Province as to how we should proceed with respect to the development of natural gas. We are doing that in partnership not just between several departments of government but with the Newfoundland industry itself, which is involved in the support and supply of services for offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

It appears to us that is the most reasonable way to go and we are doing that, knowing that there is going to be a public hearing process in September. We are now in March; six months from now we will be in public hearings. When the time comes, we will be prepared to take our full and proper role and we will do so on the basis of sound information, not opinion and not dialogue which is flung out across the floor without any proper research.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to take the time to reflect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: - properly upon these issues without flinging out their opinions which (inaudible) based on substance.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is either to the Premier or the acting energy minister. The government has a decision report from the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board relating to an application from the Hibernia Management and Development Corporation to increase annual production from the Hibernia field from 49.5 million barrels to 66 million barrels. This constitutes a 33 per cent increase in the depletion rate of the Hibernia field and would reduce the production life of the Hibernia field by one-third. My question to the acting Minister of Mines and Energy, or the Premier, is: What, in fact, did the C-NOPB decide or recommend?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the C-NOPB has given permission to the HMDC group to go to daily increase in production but not annual increase in production. That matter is now with the Minister of Mines and Energy, with the government. It is a question that is now being analyzed. In fact, it is one that I expect we will be dealing with and looking at later this week.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, in fact, it may it may be too late if it is later on this week. We have a statement released by the C-NOPB dated February 17, 2000, and it states that under the acts - because both ministers were advised, federal and provincial - the ministers have thirty days from receipt of the C-NOPB decision report to approve or reject the board's decisions.

Mr. Premier, aren't you and isn't your government too late? Therefore resulting in, whatever the decision or recommendation of C-NOPB in fact will be, what the decision of this government will be.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I checked on this matter just a few days ago and we are still operating within the prescribed time frame, and still taking the time necessary to do a proper analysis before we come to a conclusion.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, in light of the fears of a decision coming from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that a reduction in the snow crab quota this year might be as high as 20 per cent to 50 per cent, the minister knows full well the devastation that this will cause to fishers, plant workers, rural Newfoundland, and in fact the whole economy of this Province. I ask the minister if his department has made a recommendation to the federal department; and, if so, how is he suggesting that reduction in quota be levied among the different fleet sectors?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't made a recommendation on the cuts or the proposed cuts that are expected to come from science, nor would I intend to. I would hope that we will all listen to the science from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Consultation has actually started today in Grand Falls with industry. They will continue tomorrow here in St. John's, and in Labrador on Wednesday. At the conclusion of those consultations, a recommendation from the industry will go off to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada.

Our position, as a government, the industry's position, is that we have to be aware of what happened in the past and we have to take every consideration to what science will put to the minister and industry.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, as you know, the snow crab quota has already been suggested for this year. Fishermen have invested millions of dollars to buy new boats, repair boats, and purchase fishing equipment. Here we are, one week before the fishery is to begin, and we still don't know what quota of snow crab fishermen will be allowed to catch.

I ask the minister, number one, if this fishery will commence on April 1? Will the under thirty-five foot sector, the fishermen who maintain our rural communities, have a crab quota in order to maintain the viability of their enterprises?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict what is going to come out of the discussions this week. I hope it is not as bad as was first perceived, but as far as the crab season starting April 1, the minister has said that as soon as industry concludes the discussions with DFO this week and the recommendations go forth to Ottawa, he will not delay his decision by no more than the week of April 3-6. So it will get an early start, getting that information up to Ottawa.

I understand that everybody, not only the small boat fishermen but everybody, has made a significant investment for the year 2000, getting ready for the crab season; but the one thing that none of us can do is ignore the advice of science, regardless of how much money is invested. We don't want to go the way of Alaska and have no crab fishery at all. We want to base it on the long-term interest of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we don't want to be alarmists over here. We have just as much belief in the conservation as the members opposite, but the problem is the lack of science, the lack of money that has been put forward so we can know what this fishery can stand and what it can't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, DFO scientists have raised the possibility that crab stocks may be exhausted in three years' time. Has the minister approached his federal colleague to have a contingency plan brought forward to help fishers and plant workers in the event that there is a catastrophic collapse in this particular fishery?

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

MR. EFFORD: I can't believe question coming from the Opposition critic for fisheries today, to say: Do we have a contingency plan?

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been minister since 1996 and the one thing, in representing this government, that we have put forth to every fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador: diversify, diversify, diversify. Look at underutilized species. Take advantage of every opportunity in that ocean. Manage the fishery on a conservation measure, under principle of conservation. Do not put all of your eggs in one basket. If the crab stocks are starting to go down, at least we have the good commonsense to catch it before it goes into a total collapse. Listen to science. Let's not go fearmongering that it is all over. It is not all over!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: It is not all over. You are fearmongering. You are going to drive the people out there now into saying: It is all over boys, like it was in 1992, and I am not going to be a part of a public discussion like that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier and it relates to the White Rose development. The C-NOPB has an appalling record of protecting jobs and benefits for Newfoundlanders and the issue of the engineers in Leatherhead, England is a perfect example.

What confidence does this Premier have in the ability of the C-NOPB to conduct proper hearings and actually consider these issues of jobs and benefits for Newfoundland? Is it government's intention to let them make the decisions on behalf of this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am really a bit surprised that the Leader of the NDP would stand up and, first of all, put a position the other day prejudging the issue and then, having put the position which prejudges the issue - which, by the way, will not be heard for six months - is now up today saying that there is no independent regulator; that a proponent, be it an offshore oil and gas company, be it a union, be it somebody wanting to build a natural gas pipeline or a GBS or any other proponent can go to.

If I hear the Leader of the NDP correctly, he is saying that any quasi-judicial panel to which competing and conflicting interests can go to be heard, in his judgement, in this Province, is completely incompetent, should therefore be ruled out of order, should be struck down; and I guess he is saying that the total development of the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador should be in the hands of a single ministry within the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that what the Leader of the NDP is suggesting?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record itself is clear as to what steps the C-NOPB has done in this regard. What I want to know is: What steps is government prepared to take to ensure that the issue of jobs and benefits is properly decided by the C-NOPB, and what role is this government prepared to play? Are they prepared to take a position on this issue and make representation to the C-NOPB? Are they prepared to put conditions in place without which they would use their veto to ensure that we have maximum return on our oil resources off our Province? What steps are they prepared to take to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is now acknowledging that the government does have a role, and government does have an ability to have a very substantial say at the end of the day, but I want to go back to the earlier comment because I think it is very, quite frankly, dangerous and counterproductive to get up and to say of the thirty, thirty-five or forty Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who work at the C-NOPB, that they have been incompetent, that they have not done their jobs, that their record is so shameful that the C-NOPB should be wiped out.

I want to say to the Leader of the NDP, and I want him to reflect upon what I am saying, when those kind of prejudicial comments are made against that collection of men and women from Newfoundland and Labrador who have a regulatory function to perform on behalf of two levels of government, their ability to function is diminished when an officer of this House, a Leader of a party in this House, more or less suggests they ought to be put out of business.

I want, for the record, to know from the Leader of the NDP if that is the position of his party. If it is, we will deal with it; but I would like a clear statement of the position of the NDP in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. The federal government's commitment to health care has decreased from around 50 per cent down to about 15 per cent, basically, of our budget today, where health care comes from the federal government. It is now based on a per capita amount, and we know that our share under per capita has been decreased because now we are only about 1.8 per cent of the Canadian population and we can expect it to go down further on a per capital basis in the future because of growing provinces - Ontario, Alberta, and other provinces across the country.

Now, the minister knows full well the federal government is not interested in paying for the operation of hospitals here in our Province. It is more interested in funding programs like home care and pharmacare, more into health education or health promotion. I hope the minister realizes that, and he made some reference today in his statement to that.

I ask the minister, what plan does he have if this trend continues and the federal government does not put more money in? Or is the federal government your only plan, Minister, for health care in our Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, at least I think the people of the Province are coming to understand that we do have a plan and we been taking some action, because if they were listening to the Opposition they wouldn't know if we should put more in or take some out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - because, depending on the time of day, the day of the week, which month it is, which year it is, whether we are inside the Legislature or outside the Legislature, we don't know which story we are going to get or what the answer would be.

Mr. Speaker, the record is completely clear. This government is doing everything it can, along with the rest of the provincial and territorial governments in the country, some of which happen to be Progressive Conservative and some of which agree with the approaches that this government is taking in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, at the meeting on the weekend, we got high praise from the health minister from Ontario, a Progressive Conservative government. We got high praise from the minister from New Brunswick, a Progressive Conservative government. We go high praise from the minister from Nova Scotia, for the very fact that despite all of our collective interests in trying to get the Government of Canada back to the table in a more meaningful fashion for funding right across the country, that they recognize - they must not have heard your representations or your leader's representations in this Legislature in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - they recognize, because they look at it dispassionately and in a non-political way because they are not running against us as a political government, that we have backfilled -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - every single dollar that the Government of Canada removed from this system and then more in the last five years, Mr. Speaker. They recognize that we did put our money where our mouth is and they only hope that they can do it when some of them bring down their budgets in the not-too-distant future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He was puzzled the last time. I am puzzled, too, because I don't know what the minister's plan is. These estimates here showed $31.7 million new dollars in the health care compared to last year, not $130-some million. I ask the minister, how is he going to live up to the expectations of nurses and other health care professionals to improve their salary and benefit levels that will keep them in the Province this year?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it again that the Opposition health critic, if he did take me up on the offer to come over here and become the Minister of Health and Community Services, would have tried to convince the Minister of Finance to put in the Budget, in a salary line, the exact amount of increase that is going to occur for nurses, for all of the people who are in the allied health professions, for the social workers, so that we would predetermine several months before the process again even concludes - this seems to be a theme of theirs today: Never mind the process, don't let anything happen, just make a judgement today - that we should have put a line in the Budget to determine exactly what the increase might be for nurses, for licenced practical nurses, for audiologists, for speech pathologists, for pharmacists, for social workers, so that a budget line would actually show that it is going to increase by either five cents or $5.

Mr. Speaker, we have agreed that there is going to be - and it is needed in the Province for us to be competitive - a general reclassification on a quick basis for these much needed professions in the health care system. We have also agreed on a larger initiative that there will be an overall brand new classification system for the entire government to be concluded in two or three years. Maybe he would suggest we should have put some number in the Budget for that as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: We will in the budgetary framework pay for the increases that come out as a result of a process that all the representatives duly respect, even if the Opposition doesn't respect the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Today I have a question for the Minister of Education. Over two years ago, I say to the Minister of Education, the former Minister of Education approved funding to the sum of $5 million for a new school to serve the Pouch Cove, Flat Rock and Bauline area. In the past two years I have been negotiating back and forth with the Department of Education, the school board and whatever to try and get this project off the ground. They were supposed to be in the school in September 1999, then September, 2000, and now they are talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Gander hospital.

MR. J. BYRNE: Like the Gander hospital, or whatever. Now they are talking about September 2001. Would the minister stand today and confirm that the money is there and that the children will be in that school by September 2001?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that I now have three critics for education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Yes, the money is there to build the new school, and as with any new facility there is some negotiation that takes place. There is always a wish list, Mr. Speaker. There are things that everyone would like to see that we cannot afford to put into a school, but I can tell you that the schools that have been built throughout this Province are state-of-the-art facilities with the latest in technology, and they are built in such a manner that all of our children can learn in a clean and safe environment. The same will happen down in Pouch Cove.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

The Chair would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today, Mr. George Fizzard, Mayor of Grand Le Pierre in the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member of St. John's South.

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

I give notice of a private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the provincial government entered into a deal enabling Friede Goldman to take over the Marystown Shipyard operation on the condition that it meets certain specified employment targets; and

WHEREAS Friede Goldman has failed to meet the employment target specified in its agreement with the Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House urge the government to enforce the penalty provisions of its agreement with Friede Goldman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

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

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to say a few more words on Interim Supply. I guess what motivated me to get up and speak today is an article that was in The Express. It was in response to an interview that was done by Brian Jones with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Just last week the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs came back from Ottawa and talked about the wonderful meeting he had with the federal minister of HRD, the hon. Jane Stewart. He talked about this very productive meeting where he and a group of Members of the House of Assembly on the government's side met with the minister. The minister was very concerned about the problem we are having here in Newfoundland with EI. The minister went on to say - in an interview with The Telegram - that the minister was going to look very seriously at the intensity rule, which is a rule that is put in place that penalizes people who are on employment insurance for any more than one consecutive year. It goes from fifty-five to fifty.

He had a brilliant solution here, and our minister appears to be agreeing with her. I can't understand it, especially I say to my friend to my far right there, with that minister's humble beginnings. I can't see how he could now come back and gloat over this great meeting he had.

I would like to refer members to a piece I cut out of The Express for March 22-28. On page 11, under the headline "EI woes could be solved by increasing wages, says federal minister," the first paragraph reads: "The problem of inadequate incomes for seasonal workers in Newfoundland who can't qualify for Employment Insurance (EI) has a straightforward solution - employers should pay them more." Nobody is going to disagree with that. Nobody is going to disagree with employers giving employees a wage hike.

Just let me continue. Paragraph three says: "Workers in seasonal industries - such as the fishery, logging, agriculture, construction and tourism - suffer under the current EI systems ‘intensity rule,' which reduces a person's benefits by one per cent each time he or she goes on EI." It is all straightforward. What the minister went on to say is: "‘The industry has to look at what it can do to help out in this situation,' says Noel. ‘If they're doing very well, then they should look at how they may be able to help increase the benefits for workers.'"

Here is the solution of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who represents this government, this House of Assembly, when he goes off to Ottawa to make representation to the Prime Minister and to the federal ministers. He says: "‘The ideal solution would be that the people who work in seasonal industries would be able to earn enough during the period that they're working to provide an adequate income for the whole year. In many cases in these industries, that would require an increase in wages.'"

What the minister is saying - and he goes on to talk about seasonal workers and how fish plants are doing very well and a lot of the tourism industries are very lucrative industries. Fishery Products International is an employer that I would consider to be a good employer here in this Province. They pay their employees and production workers - I think, with the latest contract - approximately $12 an hour. That is not counting benefits. What the minister is suggesting - most of them only work fourteen or fifteen weeks a year, so I guess they would have to increase their wages... Vic Young should go on alert that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is suggesting that the fishery workers' wages be increased to $35 or $40 an hour, because that is what they would have to make in order to take up the slack to provide them with an adequate income while they are unemployed.

You can go down to Bonavista or out to Clarenville and talk to the restaurant owners there and tell them to be on alert. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is suggesting that the restaurant owners who get busy during the summer months are going to have to pay their waitresses $35 an hour. He is going to do away with EI because the employers should pay them more money. The employers should pay them enough money within the twelve or fourteen weeks that they are fortunate enough to be employed, to look after them for the other thirty-five or thirty-six weeks.

This is what our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the minister who waited so long to be in Cabinet to represent the people of this Province, the minister who had so much to offer - and I really believed he did - this is what he came back with from Ottawa as a solution to the EI problem.

Minister, I can assure you that you are dreaming in technicolor. While we have lots of problems, I think the solutions to those problems need a little bit more thought than going out and telling the restaurant owner or the craft shop owner out in Port de Grave or down in Ship Cove somewhere, that if you are going to hire somebody then you had better be prepared to pay them about $40 an hour because they are going to have to save enough money to take them through the other thirty-five weeks of the year.

You know what the price of fuel is, you know what the price of oil is, you know what a mortgage is, you know what people are going to have to make in order to be able to tuck away enough money in order to look after themselves for the other thirty-six weeks a year. It is disgraceful, I say to members opposite.

For somebody on the government side to come back from a meeting in Ottawa with a federal minister and say this is a solution, it is disgraceful. I am very disappointed in the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who had gone to Ottawa - I had been encouraging the minister to go to Ottawa. I said: Take me with you, Minister, because I feel that I have a contribution to make. Take me with you. Take a committee of this House up and meet with the federal minister so there will be no doubt that what we are suggesting - the Member for Twillingate& Fogo knows full well and the Member for Bellevue knows full well what their constituents are going through. Go down to Twillingate and tell the fellow down there who has the craft shop set up that he should pay his employees $40 an hour. This is what your minister is saying. This is what the minister brought back from Ottawa.

I have gone to the minister and said: Minister, what we should do is, we should get a committee of the House so that it would be a non-partisan and leave no doubt in the minister's mind, when you go and meet with her, that this is not something that is going to be picked apart in the House of Assembly. This is not something that she is going to suffer from, a decision that she might make because she has been good to the people who are less fortunate. Take a committee of the whole House up so you can say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can include me.

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely. You are a member with a district that I say would be laughed at. If you went and took that article down to your district, down to Nain, Davis Inlet, Makkovik Postville, Rigolet, they would drive you out of the place because they know how unrealistic it is.

I said to the minister: Form a non-partisan committee to represent the whole House - somebody form the Liberal side, somebody from the New Democratic Party, somebody from the Progressive Conservative Party - and let's go up and make a plea together. Whether we want o believe it or whether we want to accept it or not, people who work at seasonal jobs in this Province, unemployment insurance - or the new word, employment insurance - is always going to be part of their livelihood because the opportunity is not there for them to work year round. The opportunity is not there. While they provide a very valuable service, well-trained people, the opportunity is not there for them to work year round.

I said to the minister: Minister, let's leave no doubt because this is hurting a lot of people. Let's leave no doubt in anybody's mind, especially in the minster's mind, in light of what happened to some of the decisions that she has made in dishing out funding through rural areas, let's leave no doubt in her mind that she will not get a black eye over this one because it is something that we all agree with.

Let's go to Ottawa together or invite the minister down. We don't have to go to Ottawa; invite the minister down to meet with a non-partisan committee, to meet with a committee of the whole House, so she will know which hymn book we are coming from and she will know that we are singing the same tune. Let's lay our concerns together and say: Minister, something has to be done with, number one, the intensity rule. Something has to be done with training. The $26 billion there should be spent, if we are going to look at some ways of spending it and spending it in a meaningful way, then we should include training in that particular proposal, because I am a firm believer -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am a firm believer that if we provide training -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Member for Bonavista South that the argument for this Province was well made in Ottawa last week by the delegation that we sent up there: the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the Member for Topsail, and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

You haven't said anything in this House, you haven't made any argument in this Province, that we haven't made on behalf of our Province and our people who are being harmed by this EI program. To have brought you to Ottawa last week would have been to take excess baggage that we don't need to take to Ottawa to give us advice on the argument that needs to be made for our Province.

If the kind of representation you would give in Ottawa is the kind that you have exhibited here today, then I think we did well by leaving you home. How could anybody read through the statements that have been made, the articles that have been printed, and come to the misleading kind of conclusions that we have heard from you here today? Nobody is talking about having people, the owners of -

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I prefaced what I was saying by referring to an article that was printed by - and I even gave the writer's name - Mr. Brian Jones of the Express. Everything I have said here today is in relationship and repeating what was printed in the Express. Is the minister standing here today and saying these are lies that this journalist has printed in the paper? If it is, then I suggest that he talk to Brian Jones and not come back at the messenger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. minister to take his seat. Please wait until the Chair has made a ruling. There has been a point of order. The Chair has not ruled on the point of order, and I would ask the minister to remember to be recognized before he continues debate.

There is no point of order.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: It is not so much that I am not used to being up; it is that I am so anxious to correct the falsehoods that have been just stated by the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis to try and restrain himself, and I would ask all hon. members. It is very difficult - I can understand the hon. minister not being able to hear the Chair because it is very difficult at times to hear anyone in this House.

Again, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: You are absolutely right -

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister just stood up and said that he stood to correct the falsehoods that were put forward by the Member for Bonavista. I do believe falsehoods is an unparliamentary word that should not be used in this House.

CHAIR: The Chair is unable to rule on that because again the Chair did not hear the hon. minister say that. As I stated earlier, it is almost impossible to hear anything that is happening in the House, so the Chair is unable to rule on that but we will take a...

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, if I attributed assertions to the hon. member that he did not make, I apologize; but he did say that what I was saying was that people who operate craft stores, people who operate tourist businesses and things like that in this Province, should pay their workers $35 or $40 an hour. Did you not say that?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I did.

MR. NOEL: That is nowhere in that article. You made that up.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I didn't.

MR. NOEL: I never said anything like that. Nobody has said anything like that.

We went to Ottawa last weekend and we made tremendous progress. For five years now, we have been trying to get changes in the EI system that we need for people who are having difficulties in our Province. One of the pieces of progress we made was to help persuade the Prime Minister to make a commitment to reform the EI program, to try to deal with some of these problems. Another piece of progress we made was to persuade the party of the government of this country, the Liberal Party, to pass a resolution calling for the immediate elimination of the intensity provisions from the Employment Insurance Act.

Another thing we accomplished was to have a successful meeting with the minister of the Department of Human Resources and Development, and to explain to her our point of view and discuss with her the problems and potential solutions, and get her commitment to come down to this Province. This is after five years of trying to do something about this EI program. We have finally gotten the minister responsible to commit to come down to this Province and to talk with industry representatives, communion representatives, labour representatives, governments and anybody else who is interested and appropriate, to talk about potential solutions to the problem.

This is a complicated problem, and it will not be solved by having people like the Member for Bonavista South get up and mislead people about what people are saying.

If you want to have a solution, if you are serious about a solution, then get into the debate and let us hear your solutions. The fact of the matter is that we have a very difficult question to deal with here.

AN HON. MEMBER: They cut money (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: They cut money and that is a problem for the people who are being hurt as a result, but we have deal with the reality that across this country there are a lot of people who wanted the EI system changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, we do not seem to make much progress in getting order in the House.

If we are going to get the kind of changes we want, then we have to be united in what we are looking for and we have to be prepared with the interest in other parts of the country in order to get a solution that we can have a consensus around and one that will be implemented.

Now, the only thing that we said about the possibility of employers making a further contribution -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, would the Member for Baie Verte like to have the floor?

MR. SHELLEY: I am going to, as soon as you sit down.

MR. NOEL: Well, why don't you be quiet and I will finish more quickly and you will get the floor more quickly.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, in order to get a solution to this problem, we have to deal with the views of people who do not agree with the kind of solution that we want. Now, we have the commitment of the federal government and the federal minister to do something, and we have to be prepared to talk to her about it. One of the things we have to do is to try to persuade employers - and this is what I said in the article and in interviews, the minister said - who are in a position, those who are doing very well these days, to try to find ways to extend the period of employment for people who are not able to work enough to make a decent living.

Perhaps we can do this through some training programs, as somebody on the other side suggested a little while ago. Perhaps we can do it through changing the way these industries operate, as the Minister of Fisheries in our government have been trying to encourage people to diversify our fishery, to harvest different products, to harvest more products, to do more manufacturing in our Province so that we create more jobs in our Province. The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has been doing the same thing. The Minister of Tourism has been doing the same thing, to try to extend the seasons of our tourism industry so that we can enable people hopefully to get year-round work and, if we can't do that, to get enough work so that they can qualify for good employment benefits when they are unable to work.

The minister and the federal government has indicated that they are not simply prepared to make the simplistic changes that the hon. member is calling for, to just say: Okay, we will give everybody more money. What they are saying is that they want to talk to the various interests to see if we can work out a system to focus on the areas of the country and the regions in the provinces that are having the most difficulty. This is the case in our Province, in the other Atlantic provinces, in rural parts of Quebec, and all the other provinces across the country. They realize they have a problem and they are prepared to deal with it, but they want to talk to the other interests in the country about how we can work together to deal with it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. NOEL: That is what the minister is coming down here to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the minister that those are not my words. This is from an article. In fact, I said right from the very beginning that I was -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) $40 an hour were your words.

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely. Let's look back. You talked about -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) the article. You won't find those words in there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't interrupt the minister. If you want to stand on a point or order, you can.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister, the $35 or $40 an hour is not hard to figure out.

I refer to FPI, Fishery Products International, who pay most of their laborers, most of their production workers, $12 an hour. They are working about fourteen weeks of the year, I say to the minister. Under your suggestion, under the suggestion you are putting forward here, figure it out for yourself. You are not suggesting that they pay $30 or $40 an hour; it would probably be closer to $50 or $55 an hour, I say to the minister. Figure it out yourself.

MR. NOEL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Fourteen weeks of the year, I say to the minister. Use a little bit of math.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: I don't know where the member did his math studies but it wasn't the same place as I did mine.

I would like to make the point that he may have been somewhat misled by that article because of the use of the word wages. The conversation I had with the reporter, it was an extended conversation and a complicated kind of conversation. What I was really talking about was income, the annual income, the period of work that people were able to get, not an increase in wage rates but an increase of yearly wages. If they can have an increase in wage rates, that will be fine too, but what you should understand is that what I was really talking about there was an increase in yearly income, an increase in working periods, and not an increase in wage rates necessarily.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, now the minister is taking back water; he is back paddling now. I will read from the article again. It says, "In many cases in these industries, that would require an increase in wages." Those are not my words. Those are words that you put in the article.

MR. NOEL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Actually, I said that if people are to have better incomes that would require an increase in wages. How else are you going to have a better income if your wages don't increase? I never said an increase in wage rates.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, he said he didn't say an increase in wage rates. He talked about an increase in the length of time that people worked. It is clearly stated here. The minister should know that those seasonal workers don't decide themselves that: I have my fourteen weeks and I am going home. It doesn't work that way, Minister. People are laid off in the fishery because there is no fish to process. They are laid off with J-1 Contracting and Penny Paving because there are no roads to build or the time of the year has gone where they can build roads. They are laid off from their craft shop because nobody comes to buy their crafts. It is not a situation that the minister or the people decide how long they are going to work because it might be a benefit to the EI program.

I say to the minister, he is out of touch. He could have stated right from the beginning that this was an incorrect statement. I would accept that. In fact, I wish he had stated that because it would have made me have a much better feeling about the minister and his capabilities of representing people when he goes to Ottawa to represent them on situations where we need changes to the EI program.

Those people who are drawing EI insurance in this Province today are doing jobs that are very important. My fear is that because they are not getting enough wages in order to look after their children or support their families that they may pack up and leave, and we will see some of those industries without qualified and experienced workers in order to go and access those jobs that are there.

I say to the minister - and I know he is a new minister and I know he is trying - for God's sake, minister, if you don't know the program, or if you don't know how it works, ask somebody and make sure you put forward some solutions that will help solve the problem.

We have $26 billion dollars in an EI account up in Ottawa. Your cousins in Ottawa have taken $26 billion, stolen it from the taxpayers of this country. It hurts when you get a call from somebody who says they would like to go and do a particular training program they feel will offer them some opportunity to stay in this Province, or stay in the community where they decide to live. Because labour market information shows that there were a few people who took such a training program prior to now, then they are denied access of going and taking this particular training program. For many people who don't mind leaving their town or community, they may find a job where they can go and contribute something to society. We should judge people by what they have to offer themselves, and not bring in blanket policies to cover everybody.

I say to the minister that he should pick up the telephone and call Brian Jones. I'm sure he must have read it himself and agreed that he had said it, or the minister would have put out a statement saying: This is not what I said. I can tell you that I wouldn't have somebody printing something in a newspaper that is widely distributed if it was something that didn't say. I will tell you that I wouldn't have somebody saying that a particular interview, if it was incorrect - that I would sit back and allow people to read it and think they were my words if they weren't. I don't know what effort the minister put into it, but I can tell you that it shocked me when I read this particular article.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the paper you know (inaudible) per cent (inaudible) correct. You know that.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister had time to stand. He spent ten minutes and not once did he say it was an incorrect article. All he did was defend what he said to the minister and said what I was portraying here was wrong, I was stretching the truth, I was telling falsehoods. None of that is true. All I am doing is reading an article that was printed in The Express by a Mr. Brian Jones, and I would assume that they were the minister's words. He talked about a meeting that he had with the minister.

Minister, I'm telling you that is not the solution to the EI problem. We have some great problems here, and there are some problems with the EI program. I don't think for one minute that we should just hand out cheques and not have the onus on people to go looking for work. If we are going to make changes we should make meaningful changes. One of the ways we can do it is get rid of some of the silly rules and regulations they have that govern EI. Where else in this globe would you be unemployed and the rules state that in order for you to collect unemployment insurance you must be by the phone in order to be there for when the phone rings. You are not allowed to look somewhere else for a job without letting EI know. If you are out of the Province looking for employment then you will have your wages deducted. You will loss your income because you are not in the Province for that particular week, or whatever.

Where else would you be penalized because you are unfortunate enough to have drawn EI in two consecutive years in a row and lose 1 per cent, which would take you from 55 per cent to 50 per cent? Even if you didn't work fourteen weeks, if you did not work the minimum number, you would have the amount of money that you earned divided by a divisor of fourteen in order to derive the amount of income you are to receive.

Unemployment insurance is not something that we all cherish being able to go and access. For the most part we do it reluctantly. We do it because we know that it's something that will tide us over until we get another job, and that was the intent of the EI system. I talked on Wednesday about the need for people to get out and look for a job, how embarrassing it is sometimes when people are on EI, even those who are on it through no fault of their own, how they feel they belittle themselves because they are unable to find a job. We should not go and bring forward a suggestion that the employers should go and pay those people. For the most part, a lot of those seasonal workers, especially the people who work in some of the service sectors, are getting minimum wage. I say to the minister that with the amount of money they are getting they find it difficult to even serve their two week waiting period, let alone the other thirty-five weeks of the year to spend the money that has been paid to them and carry themselves and their family through the fifty-two weeks. It is not reasonable.

I know many people on this side of the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too had an opportunity to read this article in The Express and I was equally appalled with the apparent lack of understanding of the federal Minister of Human Resources and Employment, responsible for EI, the incredible lack of understanding that she had about how the EI system works and how it affects people in this Province. The employees would love to have bigger wages. They would be happy to have bigger wages. They would be delighted to have higher wages. That is obviously why they are organizing unions to get them and try and get them as much as they can but they can't solve that problem.

I wonder what the federal Minister of Human Resources and Employment is going to do to help them solve that problem. It is all very well for her to say, and she is quoted here - I don't know who is misquoted now; whether the hon. member is misquoted or he is misquoting the minister, but the quotes around this article says: "...Noel says.

"‘She feels they are doing well enough that they could pay better salaries,' he says. ‘She feels they have more of an obligation to their employees to help provide them with better incomes.'"

Now I don't know whether the hon. minister is being misquoted or he is misquoting the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. NOEL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. FITZGERALD: Would the minister like a copy?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: I already have a copy, thank you.

The problem with this article is that it contains quotes, and it attributes comments and things said to the federal minister that the reporter said I said about what she had to say, and things like that. The particular quote that you are talking about is: "‘She feels they are doing well enough that they could pay better salaries.'" What we are talking about there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I am trying to clarify what you said. She is not saying that all employers can pay better salaries. She is saying that a few companies in some industries may be doing so well that they can be doing more to provide extra training programs, extra job opportunities, extra ways of stretching out the employment period, so that these particular people can contribute a little more to helping provide benefits for these seasonal workers who are so essential to our system.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) debate identify which employers the minister has done studies on which she feels can pay workers better. I am sure we would all like to know. I am sure the employees would like to know the results of the federal minister's study of the viability of particular industries and particular companies so that their employees would have a good idea, when they go to the bargaining table if they are unionized, or get unionized if they are not, that she knows that they can pay better wages, so they can go out and get them. So, I hope that the minister is going to bring that to the debate when he gets up to speak up in response.

I really don't understand - I guess we are starting to understanding, if this is all true - why the federal minister is in such trouble in the federal House with this particular EI system. Twenty-eight billion dollars is sitting up there is Ottawa. The member said $26 billion, but I think it is now up to $28 billion. The last press release that I have out of Ottawa, which is only the other day, says $28 billion, so it is growing by leaps and bounds. There is $28 billion sitting there, and this has been taken out of unemployed workers.

The statistics are absolutely appalling. I have some here that come from a CLC study, which is confirmed by a Statistics Canada study released the other day, that shows that less than 30 per cent of unemployed women, for example, now qualify for EI. Ten years ago, it was 70 per cent. It used to be that 70 per cent of unemployed women qualified for UI, and now 70 per cent of them do not qualify. I don't hear the Minister of Human Resources and Employment here, who is also the Minister for the Status of Women, or I don't hear the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs talk about that as a shocking statistic.

Mr. Chairman, what about young people? Today, 10 per cent of unemployed women under twenty-five qualify for UI. Ten years ago it was 50 per cent, unemployed women under twenty-five who qualified for EI. Now it is 10 per cent. Ninety per cent of young women who are unemployed do not qualify for UI any more. That is appalling. It is a shocking discrimination against women.

Men don't fare much better. Now, 19 per cent of young men under twenty-five qualify for EI. It used to be 58 per cent. It has gone from 58 per cent down to 19 per cent. Less than one-third of young people qualify for EI.

Now there are taken to the cleaners for higher education. The cost of higher education in this Province and in this country has skyrocketed. They have incredible debts, and when they cannot get jobs - we have an appallingly high unemployment rate in this Province amongst young people under twenty-five; yet, only 10 per cent of the women qualify for EI and 19 per cent of the men.

This has all happened as a result of changes in government legislation. All the minister has to say about that is: Well, you know, there are people around this country who wanted to see some changes in the UI system.

That may well be, but it is the responsibility of government to resist those changes when they are bringing about the kind of havoc and hardship they are doing in this Province.

Hundreds of millions of dollars... One estimate a couple of years ago - a year ago, actually - said that there was $500 million taken out of this economy in a matter of a couple of years from UI payments. When we talk about the ability of people to spend money and pay taxes, whether it be GST or HST or taxes in general, on their incomes, one of the ways that has been cut back in by decreases in the EI system.

These rules: the intensity rule, the deviser rule, the increase in the number of hours required in order to qualify for UI; the changeover, in fact, from number of weeks to number of hours has itself discriminated against women, many of whom have part-time jobs.

All of these issues are ones that need to be brought up by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, not just the one that seems to be grossly misunderstood by the federal minister. If that is the best they can do in convincing the Government of Canada there is something wrong with the system, if that is the best response that the Minister of Human Resources and Employment can say, is that they should be paid more, well, is she prepared to come down here and help the workers get better money? Is she prepared to give the union some money to organize? Is she prepared to tell us which industry she knows can pay them more?

She either has information that the workers do not have or information that the government should be making available to the public so that we know and we can identify which industries have money available to pay their workers better so they could have a better living.

Nobody wants to make their annual income from UI. Nobody wants to do that. I will take that back. There may be some people who want to do that, Mr. Chairman. There are probably also people who cheat on their income tax. There are probably people who rob and steal as well, but we are not talking about that. We are talking here about people who want to work. They want to make a living. They want to support their families. They want to pay taxes. They would love to pay taxes. They would be very happy to pay taxes as long as they had an income to pay the taxes with.

This kind of response from the federal minister, you wonder who was in the room. Was it just the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to have an article like this come out discussing what went on? I would like to know what other people have to say about what the minister said in this meeting. What kind of understanding does she have? What kind of understanding was conveyed to her, if this is the kind of response that the federal minister has made to them? What kind of education did she get from the delegation or the minister himself, or other members of this House? Was the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women there, to talk about the fact that women are discriminated against by the changes in the EI to the point that only 10 per cent of young women under twenty-five are able to collect EI - unemployed women, that is?

Mr. Chairman, there is something very wrong in this Province when we have ministers of the provincial Crown not taking their responsibility seriously, not ensuring that the federal government is fully aware of the kind of changes that need to be made to straighten it out.

Now, I understand, and I am just noting a press release here from one of the federal members of the NDP who said that the minister promised, if there were trends identified in a study, that she would take remedial measures. This is the quote here: The Human Resources and Development Minister said that she would take remedial measures if trends could be clearly identified.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the trends have been identified. They have been identified by a monitoring, an assessment report -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was hoping that the Member for Bonavista South would be in, but I guess he will be back in a minute or two. I am a bit concerned with what happened in Question Period today. I don't know if it was his intention to put some fear into minds of people out there, or he didn't realize what he was saying, but to give an impression that the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador today is in a near collapse, and should I go to Ottawa and look for a compensation package or put a contingency plan in place? That is not what we want to be out there saying in the general public today.

I think we are very fortunate, in one sense, that science caught this before it got to the position as it is in Alaska, because the crab industry in Alaska is now to a total collapse. Where a year ago they fished 235 million pounds, this year they may have a quota of 25 million pounds, which is a 210 million pound decrease, and in the year 2001 there will be no crab fishery at all. That is a serious situation.

What science is telling us now is that if we do not deal with this problem then that could happen two or three years down the road; but if we have to take a cut this year - and let's assume it will be a 20 per cent cut in the quotas - with the increase in the market price of crab this year, the actual monies that fishermen earned last year and this year will not be a whole lot different; because the market price is much better because of the collapse in the Alaskan crab fishery and the way in which we have improved in our quality here in our crab over the last three or four years. We are getting a better price in the marketplace.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, I am expecting around $2-plus a pound, but we now also have to be concerned that if we drive the price too high and consumers stop buying crab, then the price goes downward. So we have to be very conscious -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) price.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that is right, and we cannot keep pushing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: ((Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, 1995 was a clear example when fishermen were paid $2.50 a pound and the next year the price went down to 85 cents a pound. That was a combination of consumers not buying and our quality of product we put into the marketplace.

The other thing we have to look at is what we did not do last year. We left 42,000 tonnes of quota of different species of fish in the water last year because the fishermen were happy with the monies they earned, mostly from crab. We left 16 million pounds of shrimp, we left thousands of tonnes of turbot, we left scallops in the water, we left tuna in the water, we left redfish in the water, and other species, but 42,000 tonnes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We have to address that. We cannot leave that amount of fish in the water and over catch or put too much pressure on another species of fish like we are doing with crab. Thirty-five hundred boats out of the 4,300 total licensed boats in the Province are fishing crab. Thirty-five hundred boat out of 4,300. When the crab fishery started back in the 1960s there were thirty-nine boats fishing crab. We have now gone up to 3,500. Sixty-seven thousand tonnes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not core, all they, all of them? (Inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: No, most of them would be core.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not core, not fishing crab.

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes, the ones not fishing crab. We have 2,500 permit holders, small boat permit holders who said they wanted to be licensed. I said in the House of Assembly last fall that whether it is a license or a permit, they are fishing in their own zone, they have a twenty-five mile zone where they manage all the crab in there. The only difficulty they were having was going to a bank, trying to get money to improve their boats or buying new engines. Banks weren't willing to talk about those things because they had a permit and not a license. That is an issue they dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what is going to happen now (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: No, I wouldn't think so. Everything is zoned, now. The small boat fishermen are inside the twenty-five miles. Then you go twenty-five miles to fifty miles. There are four different sectors.

Let me explain. This is not a resource problem, a biomass problem, in one particular zone. It is a recruitment problem. The female crab is not coming behind. That is happening inside, that is happening in the middle distance, and that is happening outside. If you just put all the quota caught in one area, that is not helping the crab outside because the crab do not crawl that distance, 200 or 300 miles. It is a problem right across the whole biomass, the whole area, 2J+3KL. The worst area in the Province is up in the District of Baie Verte, up in 3K. They have identified that the last two or three years. I think that is substantially worse then 2J and 3L. How bad it is I don't know.

Some people say a 25 per cent cut and some people say a 50 per cent cut. I think what they are talking about is that in one area there may be a 25 per cent cut and in another area the cut may be a little more. It could be up in 3K, but we won't know that until the discussions are finalized this week.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is going to happen when, for example - there are almost twice as many plants as there used to be. (Inaudible) what do you do (inaudible)? (Inaudible) increased their capacity and now we have a smaller (inaudible). (Inaudible) ten weeks of work now instead of (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: That is good point. Here is what we have to do. First of all, there were a number of plants last year which did not process any crab last year. Twillingate, for example, Little Bay Islands, Codroy, (inaudible). What I am considering doing now, and I am going to make a decision over the next day or two, I don't see the point of licensing those plants this year. There is no point. There would be no gains to anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) last year (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. Now we have to be concerned about how we can -

MR. SULLIVAN: So how many are there? (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Twenty-nine.

The other thing we have to look at is this. When I was down to the Boston Seafood Show - and I've been finding this out for the last couple of years and I have been talking to a number of plants. In fact, there is one up in your district which will be doing it this year, in St. Mary's. We are actually sending crab down to the United States in the bulk form, let's say 20 kilo boxes. They are using some of that 20 kilo boxes in the service sector like the restaurants, and that is fine. There is another portion of that crab, whether it be one container or ten containers, where they have taken it and re-packed it into retail packs. What I have been saying, and the marketplace agrees, the companies down in the States agree with me, is that we should be doing that here. We have three companies - one is in the hon. member's district - which now will be doing that here in the year 2000. Why can't every packer do that here in Newfoundland?

If we can get that to work and it will work in two or three plants, then that will add to the weeks of work here. So we have to be a little innovative in what we do with all of our products to get more value, more work out of it, for the people here in Newfoundland. If we catch that 42,000 tonne of product that we left in the water last year, that will be weeks of work for those people. What we are talking about here now is exactly what I have been saying over the last three or four years. I have said this a thousand times in speeches I have given and comments I have made: What happens if we put all of our reliance on crab and the crab resource fails?

Look, this is a wake up call. We should have been diversifying more. We should not have been putting all the emphasis and all of the efforts on one species. We should have been looking at others. We are doing it to some extent, but when you get a reasonable income as the hon. Opposition House Leader just said, they don't want to go at it because they have enough money made, there are taxes, and everything is taken into consideration. We have to look at the fishery in the future, and we have to look probably at separation of different harvesters in what they harvest. Because how can you justify leaving all that product in the water, and then next year expect to keep the marketplaces going and taking all of that shellfish, in the case of crab, out of the water?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) hard on gear and boats, (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: If we do with the crab what we have done with the cod, and the crab stocks go, then they will wish they caught other species.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Exactly. I mean it is putting a plan in place with industry, working together. Why are there 3,500 boats fishing crab when we are leaving 4,000 or 5,000 tonne of turbot in the water? Turbot is a very valuable product today. The marketplace is crying out for it. Why did we leave 16 million pounds of shrimp in the water?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) in our nets?

MR. EFFORD: You can catch turbot with hook and line.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know you can. (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, they are. I have a real problem with what they bring in. We have turned down a lot of turbot and dumped it because of the quality which has come in.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not allowed to process it now if it is caught in a net. (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: If the quality is not of a superior quality, you cannot process it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is the policy now (inaudible), or is it based on the quality?

MR. EFFORD: Let me explain. Because I have no control over the harvesting, I only have control over the processing, so I am trying to do through the back door what should have been done through the front door from a federal position. I have said, and I have meetings starting tomorrow on this, right now my first position is: Unless you can bring in a top quality product out of the nets it will not be processed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Wait now, let me finish. I am also meeting with my lawyer. Tomorrow morning my lawyer from Justice is coming in and I want to know how I can change the fish inspection act to prevent fish coming out of gill nets from being landed at all in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fifty-seven per cent of all cod that was landed last year went into cod block. The lowest price of any fish that you could put into the marketplace was cod block. They paid a good price to fishermen and companies like National Sea Products Ltd. lost as much as $1 a pound.

First of all, it is one thing to loss money, but it is a disgrace in the year 2000 to be bringing in - in the case of 3PS - 60 million pounds of cod, and 60 per cent of that being third quality, Grade C cod. We should be ashamed of ourselves. I shouldn't be telling fishermen to do that. I shouldn't be telling processors to do that. They should be doing it themselves. How can you stay in the marketplace, how can you make money this day and age, doing something like that?

Mr. Chairman, this is not about one person trying to tell the other person what to do. This is about making the maximum amount of money we can from the fishing industry, and the only way to do that is you have to be professional about how you harvest fish, about how you handle fish, about how you truck fish and how you process fish. It is not just one group of people's responsibility; it is everybody's responsibility. I think it is time for me to stop talking about it and it's time for people out there in the industry to do what the market wants, and that is to put a quality product into the marketplace that they can get the maximum price for.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am sure the Member for Bonavista South will make some comments to the minister's comments when he comes back in, but I want to go back to an issue that was talked about previously before the minister got up. I didn't plan on speaking on this today but I am going to make a few comments on it anyway, because it is one issue that I know very well because I deal with it almost on a daily basis, especially in rural parts of Newfoundland. The minister made some comments here today about how complicated it was, and it is. It can be a complicated issue, but the truth is that there are also some simple, simple examples which describe what is happening in this Province. We should be all disgusted.

As far as going to Ottawa to make representation on this EI issue, we could all do it and I still don't think we would get through to them up there on this particular issue. Yes, it is complicated but there are some simple facts to it. The simple fact is that since the changes came into EI in this Province, the changes have cost this Province annually somewhere about half-a-billion dollars. That is the truth. Since the changes came into EI in this Province a few years ago, it makes it harder now to access it, number one; it makes it harder for people in this Province to access the EI insurance. They get on it for a shorter period of time, and they get a less amount when they get on it. Those are the three facts. Those are the only three facts you really need to know, and that's the bottom line.

At the end of the day there is some half-a-billion dollars less floating into this Province that affects everything that we talk about in this Province; half-a-billion dollars less in the economy of this Province because of the changes to EI. Now can we walk around in this Province thinking that it does not affect us, affect the changes to the health care system, affect our roads, affect the entire economy? It does. On top of that, to add insult to injury, we could look up to Ottawa and find that they have a $25 billion surplus, and we have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians scrounging.

I don't have to go back through fifty examples. I was at an appeal last Monday where I had to wait four months to get to an appeal for a gentleman, finally got to one and found out this board that had been waiting to hear this man had him turned down on a clerical error. This man had gone to social services for the first time in his life. We corrected a clerical error and got him back on the EI system. Meanwhile, we had to wait four months to be heard.

We are scrounging around, beating people over the head with such things as this in Newfoundland and Labrador and we find out that the crowd in Ottawa have a $25 billion surplus? It is pathetic to say the least, Mr. Chairman.

Then the minister stands up today and talks about how he is representing us and he doesn't need all of us to go up and browbeat what is in Ottawa. Well, we do. We should take - the whole lot of us - a charter flight and go up and stay there until they make the changes. They changed the EI system so it is harder for Newfoundlanders to access it. They get on it for a shorter period of tome, and they have less amount of money. We don't need to know any more statistics or facts. That is all it is, and it is $500 million less into the economy of this Province every single year. Imagine the devastation.

The truth is, we say too little about it. We are not saying enough about it. Now, all of a sudden, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs - which is the first time I heard him stand and talk on something - is going to champion the cause. All I will say to him is that I hope he gets some results, because to this date nobody has gotten any results and it has gotten worse and worse in this Province.

You talk about a timing for changes to EI, a time in this Province when it is needed more than ever. I will go further and say at a time in this Province when we need it the most because of the moratorium. A time when we needed this system the most is when they decide to better it, or so they thought. The time that this Province is dependent upon the social safety net of this country, the EI system, the time when Newfoundland and Labrador needed it most, the government in Ottawa decided they were going to fine tune it; they were going to correct it. Well, they didn't correct it. What they did was shove their heads under water when it comes to the EI system in this Province.

When you look at the thousands of people who try to access this system, through good will, and all of a sudden - I know the Member for Bonavista South has the same appeals - we find ourselves waiting, first of all, four to six months to get to an appeal. In the first place we say to these people who are coming to appeals: You are guilty until proven innocent. It is not the other way around. We wait for six months because they are backed up here with not enough staff to hear the appeals through the appeals boards - the board of referees and so on - backed for four and five and six months, finally get to it, finally get through the appeal process, to find out there was a technicality or clerical error. Those are the kinds of things happening in this Province.

The minister doesn't need to get up tell us that he has it all under control and that he is representing us well. People in this Province, when they needed their social safety net the most, were let down and pushed down further. I know, because I do those appeals on a weekly or monthly basis. It makes me sick to walk into an appeal board and find out that because somebody was arm's length - that is what I found out at a most recent one, a first cousin of his employer, or that is what he was accused of being. We found out, when we get to the appeal, that in fact he was not even related at all. He just had a name that sounded like he was related to his employer.

That is the kind of foolishness we are finding out, that this great reform of the EI system - they changed it from unemployment to EI. The bunch in Ottawa have a $25 billion surplus. They have hauled $500 million out of this Province on an annual basis for people. Now, to add insult to injury, we are repeat offenders. If you go back because you are a seasonal worker - and I know good, hardworking seasonal workers. They are in my district and they are all around the Province, people who come to me every day and say they are going to P.E.I. again this summer so they can get enough insurable weeks, people who don't want to look at the social services, refuse to do it. I have had calls from the wives of the husbands who have said: You have to do something for us because my husband is too proud to say he is going to go to social services.

I have done that. I had to go and convince her that she has to go to social services to get some help because her husband has to go to P.E..I to cut wood. That is what is going on. Then we ended up four months waiting for an appeal, to find out there was a clerical error. What are they going to say? Sorry, Sir, we have put you through this inconvenience for four months but now you can have your EI back.

Well, who is going to tell that gentlemen that he did not have to go to social services in the first place? Now he has to pay all that back anyway. What a system. So, when the minister stands up and talk about the EI system in this Province, and how it has affected people in rural Newfoundland, I can tell him because I see it on a daily basis.

I would like to ask the minister how many EI appeals he has done; how much he can relate to this? I do not need a bunch of bureaucrats and another review board going around. I have not even read the article that the minister is referring to. I do not even know what the article says, I do not read the Express; I read the nor' wester. That is my district. I didn't see the article, but all I can tell the minster is that we see it firsthand. I know the Member for Bonavista sees it firsthand. I don't need a bunch of experts and bureaucrats coming down to Newfoundland to tell us that they are going to redefine the whole EI system because there is abuse going on. Well, if there is abuse, solve the abuse. Don't make the person who has looked for this social safety net on a just reason because he is a hard worker and he does what he is supposed to do...

Mr. Chairman, I had a gentlemen tell me the other day it seems like when you are honest with the system, and when you tell them the truth, those are the ones who get hit the hardest. If you try to abuse the system and find you ways through the corridors, you get through it. Well, that is where the problem is. It is not with the man who tries every day to go and get his insurable weeks. There are some true blue people in this Province who work hard and look for those weeks of work - honest, hardworking people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They don't want to turn to the EI system, and they certainly don't want to be called repeat offenders or repeat users, like you are a criminal because you are a seasonal worker.

That is why this issue hits a nerve with me every time I hear it brought up. We don't talk about it enough. Every single member in this House, whether they are counterparts or colleagues of us in Ottawa, they have to be told - and our MPs and so - on a daily basis that this EI change has affected this Province more than any other province in Canada. That is what I believe.

To go deeper into that, I would say that rural Newfoundland has been affected more than any individual in Canada - rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who depend on seasonal work. They should not be chastised or looked down on because they are seasonal workers. They are dealing with reality. If they could work twelve months of the year, they would work most of them. Yes, there are abusers. Yes, there are people who skip off and have different attitudes about working. All in all, the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are a good hardworking people and they put up with seasonal work because it is the reality of the day. If they could work longer, they would. So when they turn to this social safety net, the one with the $25 billion cushion up in Ottawa, they should be able to get it.

I said $25 billion just to cut down the numbers, but I am being told here today it is somewhere near $28 billion. Try to fathom that. I am into an appeal that waited for four months because a man was $214 dollars short. Then we found out it was a clerical error and in fact he was $2,000 over. So they said: Sorry about that. We will give you your EI now, you go on home.

It is fine with them. Mr. Chairman, it goes against our entire Charter of Rights, this EI system, when you are guilty until proven innocent. I had another couple that I fought for eight months to get to an appeal. I got to it, they had already moved to Fort McMurray, Alberta, and we got it all straightened away for them, so they got eight months of retroactive EI because of another mistake.

CHAIR (Walsh): Order, please!

The allotted time for the member has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just used a couple of comments on that system today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: No leave? I have been denied leave, Mr. Chairman. I will have lots of time to conclude on this. I did make my points today on this EI, something we can all certainly share our voices in. I think we should.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am only going to take a few minutes so if the Member for Baie Verte wants to get up and have a few more words after I am finished, he is welcome to do so.

I know we are supposed to be debating Interim Supply today but it seems like we are debating the EI bill in Ottawa. I find it interesting that we are sitting here this afternoon being lectured to by those opposite. I do not mind the Members for Bonavista South or Baie Verte lecturing us on EI, but I find it almost repulsive that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is here today lecturing us on EI when they have an unemployment rate probably less than 7 per cent or 8 per cent in St. John's. He is really not speaking on behalf of the majority of the residents in his district like I am, because I am sure today the majority of residents in my district are in receipt of EI; and the portion that is not would certainly like to be but they cannot be because of the EI regulations, and with that I would like to agree with those opposite.

The federal government is sitting on somewhere in the area of $28 billion, $28,000 million, in Ottawa while we are sitting in rural Newfoundland today with little or no employment and little or no EI.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) $28,000 million?

MR. REID: I think though, Mr. House Leader, that people sometimes forget what a billion dollars is, and a billion dollars is a lot of money, and I would like to say a thousand million rather than a billion dollars because it has more effect. So $28,000 million. That is how much they are sitting on.

MR. TULK: Not $21,000 million.

MR. REID: Not $21,000 million, but $28,000 million.

The Member for Baie Verte talks about appeals. Last week I did four individuals from New World Island and I am happy to say that we won all four of those, so at least there are four families who will have some bread on their tables in the coming weeks from the federal government.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to get anywhere by attacking each other. We have done that for far too long and the more we continue to do that, the better Ottawa feels because we divide and conquer ourselves. I think we have to pull together with a single voice and address this issue. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went to the federal Minister of HRD last week with a committee of members from this side of the House and I think that they had a very good meeting. They explained the situation here in the Province, and Jane Stewart, the minister responsible, said she would come to the Province to address this issue.

I think as well, if some of you opposite would have watched the Prime Minister's speech at the Liberal convention in Ottawa last week, he did mention one thing. He did mention there was a problem with EI in Eastern Canada and that would be addressed. I am confident that the leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. Jean Chrétien, will in fact address that in the coming months and free up some of that $28,000 million, but as long as we sit in this House and criticize each other for an issue we have very little control over I do not think we are going to solve any problems. When the minister arrives in the Province, I am sure that if some of you want to have a little chat with her to address some of the concerns in your individual districts, she would have no problem. Again, all I would like to say is that I do not need to be lectured by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) appropriate for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to be talking about unemployment insurance and the fact that less than 10 per cent of the women under twenty-five across this country, Mr. Chairman, in my district, his district or anywhere else, who are unemployed qualify for UI and that his government is Ottawa are the ones that made the changes in the system that brought that about.

The fact that the unemployment rate may be better in my district, or some districts in St. John's, than in others does not mean that the people who are unemployed and who do not have an income are any better off than the people in his district who happen to be unemployed and do not have an income. I know plenty of people in my district who need jobs just as badly as the people in his district need jobs. It is totally inappropriate for this member to critize someone for raising a problem of unemployment in this Province, with the highest unemployment rate in the country, over 17 per cent, three times the national average. Any member of this Legislature, particularly the leader of a party, has a right to bring this up. This member ought not to interfere with my right to do that.

CHAIR: It is an interesting comment but the Chair wishes to advise there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I offended the hon. member's sensibilities, but all I said is I am not criticizing those who are drawing EI in your district. All I am saying is that compared to the numbers that I have in my district, yours are minuscule, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the actual numbers. I am not talking about just women, I am talking about every individual in my district. All I am saying is that your numbers don't stand up.

If you look at the unemployment rate in the greater St. John's area it is far less, it is 10 per cent or less. Today in my district I would say it is probably 60 per cent. That is what I am saying. I don't like to be lectured by those like yourself who are telling me about EI -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: - or condemning this side of the House for not doing what we think is right. I will guarantee you, you fellows do not have a monopoly on sympathy for those on EI in the Province. We are doing what we can. We have gone to Ottawa, the minister here has gone to Ottawa to address the concerns. All I hear you saying is you get up here in the House of Assembly and you court the local media. Go to Ottawa and do it! Go to Ottawa and talk to the minister yourself. I am sure she would meet with you. All I am saying is there is not much point for us to stand here day after day and criticize each other over an issue we have very little control of. I am saying that we pull together and address this issue, one of the most serious issues that I have in my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and let the member opposite have a go.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to talk a bit today too about the EI fund and talk about the unfairness in the system, but I would also like to talk about it in a different perspective.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: See, Mr. Chairmans, it shows how little the Government House Leader knows about the subject. There are no iron workers in Labrador West. I would like to talk about the EI fund for a few minutes, if I may. I would like to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: I would like to speak to what the Government House Leader is bringing up there. I think I spoke about it one time before but I am going to say it because he may not have been present at that time.

I can assure the Government House Leader that the 400 people who will be retiring from the mining industry in Labrador West, after thirty-five years of carrying a lunch can, which the Government House Leader doesn't know much about, thirty-five years waiting for a bus, 7:00 a.m., with the temperature -40, which again the Government House Leader doesn't know too much about; breathing in dust for eight and twelve hours a day while they are working; again, not too much that the Government House Leader knows about so I don't expect him to understand, Mr. Chairman -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: - about the fact that people retire after working in that environment -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair will certainly accept a certain amount of banter back and forth that normally takes place during Committee of the Whole, but I would ask members to acknowledge that a certain amount of banter is acceptable but let's try to keep it, at least, down to a dull roar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is about time somebody put the Government House Leader in his place.

As I was saying, my remarks are concerning the EI fund and the plight that is facing seasonal workers in this Province. I will say that the system is designed, in some ways, that almost forces hardworking honest people to do things that are not really above-board, in some cases, in order to receive benefits.

I think the other way that the EI system, as it currently exists, is not fair to working people is that in many cases it is a life sentence to minimum wage jobs for a lot of workers in this Province. People who quit their employment now, who are in low paying jobs, minimum wage or otherwise, cannot quit their employment to seek better employment opportunities or to return to school. If they do, they are automatically disqualified and are not eligible to receive EI. That is a grave injustice to many young people in particular in this Province today.

There is no support from the EI fund, after paying in for long periods of time, if a person decides they want to improve their lot in life and return to school to further their education, thereby furthering their opportunities to find better paying jobs in which to support themselves and their families.

Some people may qualify to get some type of assistance if they go through HRDC, but the HRDC system of approving monies for people when they return to school, not everybody is going to qualify through that. They have a limited budget. It is based on a system - people go first - and that is not fair to the majority of people in this Province today. If the system went back to what it was not that long ago, then people could qualify and receive assistance while they want to improve their lives.

A $28 billion surplus is not exactly a fund that is in trouble but it is the fund that is being controlled by the federal government, and the rules and regulations that are in place today make it impossible for most people to qualify for EI benefits, even when they lose their jobs.

I think it is also important to notice that the $28 billion that is in that fund doesn't belong to the federal government. The federal government doesn't own that money. That money comes solely from workers and employers through the premiums they pay. The only way the federal government has an interest in that fund is through the premiums they pay as an employer, the same as any other employer in this country.

I don't believe it is fair, and I don't believe it is just to the people of this country and to the people in this Province in particular, that the federal government should dictate rules and conditions attached to a fund that they don't own, making it impossible for the word insurance to become operative when a person loses their job or wants to improve their lot in life.

I believe that while there are a lot of situations around this Province that are seasonal by nature, and provide good services I might add, and that cannot be anything other than seasonal, these people should not have to go through the rituals that they do many times in order to receive and be in receipt of unemployment insurance to sustain their families during the periods of time they are not working.

Another thing is the fact of the appeal system. A person gets denied, files an appeal, and the appeal procedure doesn't happen overnight. In the meantime, the young person who is attending school, trying to improve themselves, or the person, the worker, who is laid off and needs this money to put the basics of food on their table, or clothing for their children, has to go without any type of income until a decision is made.

If, as happens in many cases - and I have heard members here today say that they have represented some of their constituents and they have won their appeals - you may win your appeal at the Board of Referees, but then many times, more often than not lately, the Board of Referees or the commission appeals the decision of the Board of Referees to the umpires; and if we thought there was a long wait for the Board of Referees to meet and make a decision, when we come to the umpire level, it is a nightmare. It can take months, sometimes close to a year, to even get your case heard before them.

I think that the old unemployment system leaves a lot to be desired. It is controlled and regulated by a government that doesn't pay any money into it, like I said, other than being an employer, and the rules certainly have to be more flexible than they are today. I think it is evident, from the $28 billion surplus that is in the fund, it is obvious - that is the purest example one can find - the $28 billion surplus means one thing and one thing only: people are not receiving the benefit they paid for while they were working, to take care of them at a time when they are not. With a $28 billion surplus, it is obvious to everyone that the only way that surplus can be there and grow is if the fund is not paying out the benefits that the fund was created to pay out.

I agree with the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, that this may not be a partisan issue; however, it is a political issue, because the terms, rules and conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Fund are decided by politics and any changes to that have to be of a political nature.

I wrap up and conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that people are right when they say that the EI system is not working for them. They are right when they say that the rules and regulations are totally unfair. Changes need to be made, and if it takes a united front from all sides of this House to help speed that along, then that is something that we would certainly be in favour of as well; but for the benefit of the unemployed people, for the benefit of the young people who need income support to further their education, something has to be done to change the rules with the EI fund as it exists today.

Thank you.

CHAIR (Walsh): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, it is great to hear the debate that is going on in this Legislature this afternoon as people talk about unemployment in the Province, and about the number of people who are unemployed and who need work, regardless of whether they are men or women. It is great to see. I can't help but respond to the Member for Labrador West and his concern about unemployment, and he should have it like the rest of us.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Member for Labrador West about another issue that is obviously going to see a great deal of unemployment in his own district, in Labrador West. That is the agreement that was signed when he was a member of the international union, running in the last provincial election, an agreement that he says he knew nothing about.

Until I hear the hon. gentleman say differently, I can only stand here and say that I have to believe the hon. gentleman because he is a member of this Legislature. We assume that everybody in this House is an hon. member; but I want to tell him today that there are an awful lot of people in Labrador West who certainly don't believe that the hon. gentleman, who was the president - were you the president? Certainly you were a very high official in the union in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What was he?

AN HON. MEMBER: International representative.

MR. TULK: He was the international representative, the senior official of the International Steelworkers in Labrador.

I have a little article here which says: Mr. Collins denies knowing anything about these negotiations occurring just down the track during a time when the unions in Labrador City were in negotiations for a new contract.

He comes in here and kicks up a big fuss about the fact that this government over here is giving away our resources, that they are going to give away fifty jobs -

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TULK: - fifty jobs, because the government will not force - he says - the Iron Ore Company of Canada to put a pelletizing plant in Labrador City. Just down the track, as this article says, from Labrador City was a deal that was being signed when he was in an election - didn't bring it up. The deal was being signed just down the track to lay off - listen to this - was it fifty workers?

MR. EFFORD: How many?

MR. TULK: Five hundred and sixty workers in Labrador City, and the hon. gentleman, all throughout the election, denied knowing anything - that that ever happened.

MR. EFFORD: That's unreal.

MR. TULK: Now isn't that something? Here was the hon. gentleman running in an election saying: Oh no, not me. I am only the senior official. I only sit on the negotiating team.

He stands up today, then, and goes on and tells us about his concern for unemployment. Fifty jobs with a new pellet plant was all important to him. Five hundred and sixty jobs was not important to him.

MR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sandbagged his constituents.

MR. TULK: He sandbagged them. He sandbagged them just to win an election, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a point of order.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring up a point of order in respect to the Government House Leader's remarks. He said he won't believe it until he hears it from my own mouth. Well, he has heard it three times. He just refuses to believe it.

I would like to ask the Government House Leader to explain one thing when he gets up again. Talking about the whole pellet plant issue, the Liberal government commissioned Hatch Consultants to do a study on the pellet plant issue, a study that came back and said it was more economical to do it in Seven Islands. I wonder, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I just cannot help but wonder in the back of my mind if there is any association -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: - between the report, the government connection, and the $9,500, according to the Chief Electoral Office, that Hatch Associates gave to the Liberal Party? I can't help but wonder that, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the Government House Leader would respond to that as well, because I can tell you that obviously, from his comments here this afternoon, there is an awful lot about Labrador that he is not aware of. There is an awful lot that he doesn't know anything about, from the structure of the union -

CHAIR: Order, please!

Would the member get to his point, on the point of order, please?

MR. COLLINS: My point of order, quite simply, is this: I think the Government House Leader would be well advised to make sure that he knows what he is talking about in terms or organization, geography and other things before he gets up to counteract something that has been done.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me tell the hon. gentleman something now. I would say there is not as much went into my pocket from the IOC as there was went into your pocket from certain unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, who just shoved a book across in front of him -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - that if I had made money at a certain -

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Government House Leader has come perilously close to the line on some of the comments. I would ask that the Government House Leader restrain himself and probably withdraw some of the -

MR. TULK: What is it you want me to withdraw, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: I will listen to the point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, if I could, on a point of privilege.

CHAIR: The Chair is hearing a comment referring to money being put in people's pockets, and the Chair is not quite understanding the depth of the comment. I believe that is a point of order that is coming at the Chair.

MR. TULK: Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I withdraw any comments that I made about the hon. gentleman and money being put in his pockets, but I am sure he received substantial campaign funds from certain sources. Is that in order?

CHAIR: The Chair thanks the Government House Leader for clarification.

MR. TULK: You are kindly welcome.

CHAIR: Is there a point of order?

MR. COLLINS: A point of order.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that you were right on the money. That was the point of order that I was rising on. When I got up and spoke earlier, I talked about the connection to the Liberal Party. I did not suggest for a minute that any of that money went into the member's pockets, which he suggested happened to me. I accept his comments where he retracted that.

CHAIR: There is no point of order but the Chair is about to ask for the same from the hon. member as he did from the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me just come back to the point at hand, and ask the hon. gentleman if he would stand up - regardless of who contributed to his campaign, the NDP's campaign, or regardless of who contributed to the Liberal Party - and clarify for me how it is that he, the senior official of the International Steelworkers in Labrador, was not aware that there was going to be an agreement signed that would see 560 workers lose their jobs in Labrador City? When I sit down, if the hon. gentleman would love to stand up - and, at the same time, here he was going off - and do not talk to me about Hatch Associates - about the fact that the government was going to allow a pelletizing plant to go down in Sept-Iles and lose fifty jobs in Labrador City.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Why were the jobs going there? He and his cohorts signed an agreement with IOC to lay off 560 people in Labrador City. He did not know about it. I understand that the reason that he said he did not know about it is because he could not speak French.

MR. COLLINS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I figured that was the only way to get the Government House Leader to sit down after he volunteered to do so and let me answer.

The question that he is asking and I guess what he is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COLLINS: Oh yes, he is gone.

Mr. Chairman, the question is that no -

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are obviously going with a series of questions back and forth, (inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the Government House Leader obviously does not know anything about the structure of the Steelworkers Union, of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, of local unions and how they fit together and who has the deciding voice. He does not have any idea. Make no wonder he is missing the boat.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. gentlemen that I know enough that if I were the senior official of the International Steelworkers in Labrador that I would know whether there were going to be 560 people laid off or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I suspect that the hon. gentleman knew more.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The allotted time for the hon. member has expired.

MR. TULK: No leave? No, not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. TULK: I will be back at you, boy. I will have to come back at you.

CHAIR: No leave.

The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have listened with interest over the past hour or so as the different members of the House talked about one of the major concerns that we have in the Province, and that is certainly the changes that have affected the EI system. I was surprised when I watched the Government House Leader on his feet putting forward his concerns in the debate and concerned about employment, I should say, in the Province. Certainly, as the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal he should be very concerned about the employment and the lack thereof in the Province. The changes to the EI system are something that certainly affects the rural parts of the Province much more.

I say to the Government House Leader that I watched parts of the Liberal convention the weekend before last. I just happened to turn on the CPAC channel last weekend and I watched part of the Liberal convention. It is very interesting today to see the story today concerning the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I will get to the details in a minute. I flicked on the channel and it was the resolution session, I say to the Minister of Health.

The chairperson of the resolution session brought forward a resolution from the Newfoundland delegation concerning what needs to be done with the EI system and improvements that need to be made to the EI system to make it better for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially people in rural Newfoundland. I waited. As a matter of fact, I got the remote and I turned it up a bit. I wanted to hear what the Newfoundland delegation had to say about the changes that were needed to the EI system in this Province. I sat back in my chair and I waited with anticipation.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people spoke?

MR. MANNING: Hold on now. I am sure, I said to myself, the first person up to the microphone will be the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, because of the impact that the EI system changes have had to rural Newfoundland. I figured the first person to get to the microphone would be the hon. Government House Leader.

No, he never went up. He never went to the microphone. Then I said to myself: I'm sure the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is going to make a comment on changes to the EI system and the improvement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Hold on now. I'm sure he is going to make a comment with the affect that the changes have had to the people in his industry. I was sure he was going to be at the microphone. No, he never went to the microphone. Then I said to myself: I'm sure the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is going to go up to the microphone. Lo and behold, he never went to the microphone. Then I said to myself: Sure, in the tourism industry, how important it is to the Province, but that is a very seasonal industry in most parts throughout -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: God knows where he was. Do you know where he is today, I say, Mr. Chairman, let alone say where he was at the Liberal convention? I am sure he had other things on his mind, as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation always has a few things extra, extracurricular activities, to be involved in, I'm sure. No, he never went up to the microphone either. Then I said: I'm sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will go up. I mean, many people in his department are involved in seasonal operation in the Province; there are a lot of seasonal workers in that department. I looked up and no sir, he did not get up to the microphone either. Then I said: I'm sure the Member for Lake Melville, the minister at the Cabinet table from Labrador, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, would get up to the microphone and make a few comments about the affect that the EI system has had on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. No.

The chairperson of the resolution session said: Is there anybody who would like to speak for the Newfoundland delegation? Then I said: I'm sure the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is going to get up and make a few comments. No, she never went near it. If I was a betting man, I was positive that the Minister of Environment and Labour was going to get up to the microphone. I was sure he was going to get up to the microphone. The Minister of Labour for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who has seen $400 million to $500 million taken out of the EI system each and every year for the past five years, would get up and make a few comments about what his cousins in Ottawa were doing to the people of this Province. No, sir, the Minister of Environment and Labour never spoke.

Then I said to myself: If the people around the Cabinet Table, the Minister of Mines and Energy, I am sure a person who has leadership aspirations, the Minister of Health and Community Services, would get up on his feet and make a few comments about it. No sir. The Chair asked once again: Is there anyone here from the Newfoundland delegation who would like to make a few comments on this resolution? The silence was deafening. Then I said: If there is no one at the Cabinet table, for whatever reason or other - and I do not understand what it is all about - but if the Premier says: Nobody speak on it, I guess you have to do what you are told.

AN HON. MEMBER: The President of Treasury Board is here.

MR. MANNING: Yes, the President of Treasury Board was there, and nobody got up to speak. So I said in my own mind: I'm sure that if nobody at the Cabinet table wanted to get up and speak on this resolution at the Liberal convention regarding EI, there might be some of the people up in the nosebleed section who would want to get up and say a few words, Mr. Chairman.

I said to myself: I'm sure the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is concerned about the changes to the EI system. I'm sure he is concerned about the affect that the changes to the EI system are having on the people in his district. Mr. Chairman, did he get up and speak? No. I'm sure that any man in this House who has fifteen new suits home in the closet is concerned about the people who are struggling with the EI system in this Province. I am sure that the Member for Bellevue was going to get up on his feet and make a few comments. I know several people in the District of Bellevue. Why he has fifteen suits, I am dumbfounded at that also. I don't know the answer to that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The Opposition House Leader said that when the Member for Bellevue thought he was going to go to Cabinet, he got a suit each time he thought he was going to go to Cabinet. Now he has fifteen suits and he is still a parliamentary assistant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I just changed it around.

I said then, I am sure the Member for Bellevue, understanding his district, understanding his plight -

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue, on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I am really pleased that the hon. member has the information correct because the other day he was talking about two suits. I corrected him and I said fifteen, so he is using the right number.

As a point of order, I remind the hon. member that the hon. Member for Bellevue was at the Liberal convention and was very heavily involved, was a delegate at the Liberal convention. It was a very impressive convention. As a matter of fact, there were over 3,000 people there and on Friday night you couldn't get a place to sit down. I had to stand up and listen to the Prime Minister's speech because you couldn't find a seat in the auditorium. The reason I wanted to -

CHAIR: Please get to the point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I will get to my point of order right now, Mr. Chairman. That is my preamble to the point of order.

I had a make-work project in my district last fall, and I looked after the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's district -

MR. MANNING: What?

MR. BARRETT: - because the two workers that we hired came from his district. They came over into my district to work because everybody in my district was working.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order, and the allotted time for the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has expired.

For the record, I want the member to know that I didn't go to the microphone either.

MR. MANNING: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back, if I could, to my friend from Labrador West. A few minutes ago, I thought he was going to be out of the House and I thought I was going to have to ask his leader if he would send out my request to him and ask him to come in, because I do want the Member for Labrador West to stand in his place before we close this afternoon and sincerely tell me in this Legislature that he did not know about the agreement that was announced on February 11, two days after the last provincial election, which would see the layoff of some 560 people. I do want him to stand before we leave, before we get out of Interim Supply. As a matter of fact, if I could move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. this evening I don't know but I would do it just to make sure to give him time to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I can't believe what the people of Labrador West are telling me and what I have read in newspapers. I cannot believe that the Member for Labrador West, in the middle of an election campaign, when he was a senior official for the Steelworkers International Union in Labrador West, that he somehow managed to forget, for the sake of getting elected, that there were going to be 560 people laid off in Labrador West.

I can't believe that, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe that is possible. I don't believe that a fellow who comes from the Northeast Coast of this Province, where I come from myself, would allow his desire to be elected - would allow him to forget that there was an agreement being signed just down the road from Labrador City that was going to do far more damage than any not opening of a pellet plant would do in that town. I can't believe it, and I can't believe that the hon. gentleman would say the reason that he didn't know about it is that he didn't speak French. I can't believe that at all.

There are an awful lot of coincidences here. The election was February 9, 1999. The hon. gentleman got elected. He got elected - I will say to him now - on the issue of the pellet plant. There is no doubt in anybody's mind about that, that he got elected -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) gave him that issue.

MR. TULK: Never mind who gave him the issue. He got elected solely on the fact that there was not a pellet plant built in Labrador City. He and a few people made the case that the pellet plant should have been built in Labrador City rather than in Sept-Iles. Yet, at the same time as that was going on, the union of which he was a senior official was down the road signing an agreement that would eventually see the layoff of some 560 people, more than ten times the number of people who could get to work in the pellet plant. Five hundred-sixty people; fifty jobs in a pellet plant in Labrador City.

MS S. OSBORNE: Did the Premier (inaudible)?

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. lady from St. John's West that is not the Premier's actions I am debating here; it is the member who stood in Labrador City night after night and told his own people, his own workers, the people he worked with in Labrador City, that this government - you have to elect me to protect you, because this great Liberal government is putting you down and you have to elect me, Randy Collins, to protect you.

At the same time, there was a union just down the road - of which he was the senior official - and that union already knew about an agreement that was going to see 560 of its workers laid off.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I want the hon. gentleman to stand up here. I want him to clear the record, because nobody will come into this Legislature and tell a falsehood. Nobody. I want him to stand up here this evening and tell me, before we close, that: No, I didn't know about it, and there is a better reason than I couldn't speak French. There is a better reason than that, if you didn't know about it. There has to be a better reason than that.

The only conclusion that you can come to, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman does not stand up and do that this evening, is to ask those questions that were asked in this article. When you think about the Seven Islands announcement on February 11, was the union, at its highest level - you, Mr. Collins - and its co-workers, the international union officials, really behind the people of Labrador West? Were they really behind the people of Labrador West, or were they just trying to get an NDP member elected?

This gentleman concludes this article by saying: It is now time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Never mind. You answer the question. Never mind the source; answer the question. You are held accountable - you will be held accountable, you can be sure of that. What did he know -

AN HON. MEMBER: And when did he know it?

MR. TULK: - and when did he know it? Did he know it on February 9? Did he know it all those nights that he stood in meetings in Labrador West or met his workers, his co-workers? Did he know then that there was a union agreement about to be put in place, about to be announced? Did he know about it then?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, he couldn't be trying to sweep it under the rug, not at all.

The question is: Was the fuss about a pellet plant, or was it more about getting the NDP member elected? A bigger question than that, I say to him, we want him to stand up and tell us what he knew, and when he knew it. Stand up and tell us. Did he know there was going to be an agreement signed to lay off 560 people in Labrador City? Did he know it or didn't he? I say to the hon. gentleman, that is the only way he will escape, if he gives a very valid reason for standing up and telling us that he really didn't know, and give us a really good reason as to why not. It is not enough to say you cannot speak French, you cannot understand French. That won't do it; that won't cut it.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to sit down and let the hon. gentleman stand up and tell me what he didn't know, and I ask you to recognize him. I ask the hon. Member for Placentia to sit down and let him be recognized.

CHAIR: In the last volley, the Chair recognized the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and it is only right that the Chair go back to the Member for Labrador West to allow a break between the two speeches.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: It is sort of ironic, Mr. Chairman, that when you feel inadequate and guilty about something that you had control over and didn't do, that you lash out at the people who did try to do something. I think this is a classic example, a lesson that we are getting here on that question today.

I would like to talk a bit about the subject that the hon. House Leader has raised. I would like to start off first by referring to the article that he just read with the pointed questions, as he calls them. I would like to say that the pointed questions that he is raising, as if they are coming from an independent journalist or someone who is independent of the whole situation, sounds very much to me like the questions that were asked by the Minister of Mines at the time.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is that they were not questions that were printed by the Minister of Mines at the time. As I said to the hon. gentleman in my speech, where the questions come from doesn't matter. The fact is, they are out there. It could be my notes. The fact is, they are out there. Never mind the source. Did you or didn't you, and when?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I will say, Mr. Chairman, if he wants a straightforward answer to the question, the answer is: No, of course I didn't. I can say that for probably every day the House sits for the next three years and he probably still won't accept it any more.

I find one thing amazing, and that is where he comes up with the number that there are going to be 560 people laid off. I don't know if he knew something that I didn't know, but I certainly didn't know that. The only thing is, when the government allowed the Iron Ore Company of Canada to reactivate their plant in Seven Islands, rather than taking, I might add, the same approach they are taking with Inco and the smelter, they washed their hands of the deal. They commissioned a study that would justify the position that the company wanted to take. They were the ones, I remind them, who announced the decision for the Iron Ore Company of Canada, not the company themselves.

When we talk about the jobs that were being lost - it is still a concern for the people of Labrador West right now, the reactivation of the pellet plant. It is still a concern; because, for the first time in the history of Labrador West, in the Iron Ore Company of Canada, there is now going to be a pelletizing plant that will compete with the one in Labrador West, and we never had that before in our history.

We also heard that the hon. Government House Leader wanted to hear about the agreement that was reached in Sept-Iles. Well, obviously again, he doesn't know much about the structure of the labour movement in general and he knows even less about the structure of the steelworkers union in particular, because every single local has their own autonomy, and every local union within the steelworkers union act on their own.

Also, in regards to negotiations taking place, when negotiations take place, as was in this particular case, we are not involved in those negotiations whatsoever. We do not have anything whatsoever to do with them. That is their own set of negotiations, the same as Labrador City and Wabush will do their own set in the mining industry, and the only time the parties come together is for, not always, but at a monetary table. Completely different districts.

The steelworkers union in Labrador, Mr. Chairman, for the educational purpose of the members opposite, is in District 6; the steelworkers in Sept-Iles are in District 5, not even the same director or anything else. So, it is obvious that they have a lot to learn on that I am willing to teach them, but it doesn't appear they are willing to learn.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe for a minute if that agreement was public before February 9, I really believe that the Liberals would have gotten even less votes than they got in the past election, because then people would really have been upset with them and rightly so; because, without the permission of this Province, the Iron Ore Company of Canada would not have been able to reactivate their plant in Sept-Iles using ore from Labrador. If the Premier and this government took the stab with the Iron Ore Company of Canada, if the Premier went to Australia on the first flight, as he suggested he would do - which, I might add, the Quebec Government did but this Province did not. They sent people to Quebec for three weeks to meet with North. The government of this Province said they would be on the first flight -

AN HON. MEMBER: To Australia.

MR. COLLINS: Yes, to Australia, but to my knowledge the Premier or no representative of this government went to Australia to meet them on this particular issue.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the frustrations of the Government House Leader. I can understand them wanting to use somebody else for a scapegoat for their inabilities to do what was right for the people of Labrador West. I can understand all of that, but it is not going to work. It may work among his own members in the House of Assembly, but I can guarantee you it is never going to work with the people of Labrador West. They know what happened. They know exactly what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: They had, Mr. Chairman. They know there was a minister of this government who came into Labrador West and said the line is drawn in the sand. Not one ounce of ore will leave this Province for pelletizing in any other part of this country except Labrador West. That is a minister of this government who said the line is drawn in the sand.

Other ministers came in and used words like: no more giveaways; new kids on the block; no more giveaways. They are not dealing with the same people now they dealt with years ago. We are tougher. Well, they were tough. They were really tough when it came to talking the fight, but when it came to fighting the fight they snuck away pretty fast and took action that would defend what the Iron Ore Company of Canada wanted to do. That is the real story, and that is the real thing that happened. I will never convince these members of that. Frankly, I don't care if I do, but I can assure you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: I don't know what they are upset about. Let me talk a little bit about Labrador West. I don't know what they are upset about. The election in 1996 was won on one issue, one issue only. It was the decision that the PC member took at that time that he firmly personally believed in on the question of denominational education, and he took a stand different than the referendum held in Labrador West decided he should have taken. That was the one issue the Liberals won that seat on in 1996, plus what they called the TT, the Tobin Tide. That is the only reason there was a Liberal elected in Labrador West.

If you check back into the history of the District of Labrador West or Menihek you will find that in the forty-odd years since we led a district the Liberals only held that seat for about five. In the election in 1996, the Liberals won that election. It was the first time we had a Liberal member since back in the 1960s. They are acting like they lost one of their prime areas of support when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

I have told the Government House Leader what I know. He refuses to accept that. I cannot help that. That is his prerogative. I can tell him there are many members of the Steelworkers Union working for the Iron Ore Company of Canada from his home town who will certainly be able to tell him what happened.

MR. TULK: What, me?

MR. COLLINS: Yes. The Government House Leader is saying: Me? I said there are many people in Labrador City working at the Iron Ore Company of Canada from your hometown or your neck of the woods. They can tell you what happened. It would be the same thing as I am telling you.

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to take much time, to be frank with you, because I just want the hon. gentleman to tell me - it is a very simple question - how the senior official, the senior representative of that international union did not know. Now, he disputes the figure of whether it is 560 jobs. I say whether it was ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, 200, 250 or whatever number was, I want him to stand in this Legislature and tell me what he knew about that contract and when he knew it.

Did he suddenly find out about it on February 11, two days after the election? Is it a believable story that the senior official of that union in Labrador City did not know until after the election was over? Is that possible? Is it possible that the hon. gentleman did not know about those people that were going to be laid off? If he can tell me, yes, there are people from my hometown, know them well, that work in Labrador City; if he can tell me that those people knew what he knew and knew when he knew it about that contract in Labrador City, then I tell him what. I will pay his fare and my fare up to go talk to them and we will spend a good weekend with them, if he can name those people to me this evening. I can name them, the people who are working there from my town. There are not very many of them. As a matter of fact, there are only two of them that work in Labrador City from my community, where I come from. If he can tell me that they knew what he knew about that union contract before February 11, 1999, and tell me when he knew it, then I will gladly get in contact with him and take him with me so we can all sit down in front of them and hear them tell both of us.

The hon. gentleman can stand up and fudge it all he likes. He can start talking about the row over the pellet plant. I agree with him, that is why he won the election. Here he was, or here he is purported to have been - maybe he did not - but I want him to tell me he did not. He is the senior official of that international union and he stands this afternoon and says: No, I did not know about it.

MR. COLLINS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I do not know how many times I need to tell the hon. Government House Leader, but I will try it one more time. When he talks about senior official and about the structure of the Steelworkers Union, I was the staff representative for Labrador West; the staff representatives for Sept-Iles or District 5 are down in their area. We do not meet on a regular basis. We go sometimes a year or two without even seeing or talking to each other. So I want him to be perfectly clear that we do not take part in their negotiations, we do not know any more about what they are doing at times then, probably, this government knew about the Quebec government going to Australia and meeting with North. I never heard them say that yet.

MR. ANDERSEN: You are nervous, Randy.

MR. COLLINS: I am not nervous, Wally. You never get nervous when you are telling the truth.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, we have the hon. gentleman telling us that here he is, the senior official of an international union in Labrador City, and yet he didn't know what his brothers and sisters were talking about down the road. That stretches my imagination. It probably doesn't stretch his, but it stretches mine. It stretches mine that he wouldn't know - they are so closely tied together - what is happening down the road. I say to the hon. gentleman: Don't dig the hole any deeper.

MR. COLLINS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I think the hon. member would recognize the fact that when you are running an election I wasn't working at that time. My time was dedicated to making sure that this government, when they reconvened, would have one less seat than they had when the House adjourned prior to the election being called. That is what my efforts were dedicated to, and that is what I worked at twenty hours a day to make sure that happened. I wasn't concerned about negotiations that were taking place at that point in time, the details. I was more concerned about getting elected to represent the people of Labrador West and provide good leadership and representation for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, we do know one thing for sure and certain, that the hon. gentleman was concerned about getting elected. That was the chief thing on his mind. He has partially confessed.

MR. SWEENEY: The only thing on his mind.

MR. TULK: I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace that I don't believe he went quite that far, to say it was the only thing on his mind, but it was certainly the chief thing on his mind. That is clearly established. What is not established is how that senior official and some of the people who worked on his campaign - I know them well - were also members of an international union just down the road. I know them well, I say to the hon. gentleman. It won't do for him to say: Here they are working on my campaign, we are working together as brothers and sisters in the NDP to get me elected, and yet I didn't know they were going to sign that agreement that was going to lay off hundreds of people in Labrador City.

I say to the hon. gentleman that if he says he didn't know there is only one next place for you to steer in your thinking. Maybe the hon. gentleman didn't want to know. Maybe the primary thing on his mind was to get elected. Maybe that was it: If I can find an issue that will get me elected maybe I will deal with the other one afterwards.

I want to say something to him. His story stretches everybody's imagination that I know in Labrador West today. They are trying to imagine how it was that he couldn't know, that he didn't know. They are wondering. I say to the Member for Labrador West they are wondering. Your explanation is getting thinner all the time. The people of Labrador West will be reminded of what the hon. gentleman did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every day.

MR. TULK: Every day. They will be reminded every week this spring.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't forget.

MR. TULK: No, they won't forget. I say to him, if he believes for a minute that the people of this Province have a short memory when it comes to things like that then he won't last long in this political game. Ask the Member for Bonavista South if the people remember. Ask me. I got defeated in 1989. Ask me if they remember.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. gentleman this evening that he had better have a better explanation than the one he has given in this House this evening when he next faces the people of Labrador West. They will take care of you. They will sit in judgement of the hon. gentleman, not me, not this Legislature, not the members of this House. They will remember when the hon. gentleman did not know on February 9 but yet knew on February 11. They will remember that and they will be, every now and again, reminded.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The debate is certainly interesting here today. I guess it all stemmed from the changes to the EI system that have caused havoc on the Province.

I began an inquisition here today. I began what I would call an inquisition. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries is always concerned about getting to the bottom of something. I watched him over the past few years as he attempted to get to the bottom of something. That is exactly what I am doing here today. I am trying to get to the bottom of something that happened a few weeks ago in Ottawa. What I am trying to find out is why a resolution went to the floor of the Liberal convention -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, no, I am trying to find out why a resolution from the Newfoundland delegation went to the floor of the Liberal convention, and had to do with the problems the EI system is putting on this Province. I went through a list earlier, and if there is somebody on that side - I am after having three notes sent over to me since the last time I spoke, saying: I wasn't in Ottawa.

So people are trying to get away from the issue here. If anybody here would like to send over a signed affidavit saying they weren't in Ottawa, I will accept it, but these little notes, I don't accept that as an answer.

I listened as the Member for Bellevue got up. I wonder why, in all honesty, the Member for Bellevue didn't get up and make comments on the changes to the EI system and the effect that it has had on not only his District of Bellevue but indeed the whole Province; $500 million approximately gone out of the EI system in the past four to five years. I was asking the Member for Bellevue why he didn't get up and speak at the convention on the resolution.

He got up in his seat today and said he was attending a dinner for Jean Chrétien, where there were 3,000 people and there was no room. He was very happy to say that. What I want to say to the Member for Bellevue is, there was all kinds of room at the microphone at the resolution session and nobody got up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, all kinds of room! Shame, I say, on the Member for Bellevue! Shame on you. Oh yes, leave. He can't take it.

Mr. Chairman, there was all kinds of room at the resolution session. I have to go down and ask a couple of more why they didn't speak. I wonder why the Minister of Education didn't speak on the resolution from the Newfoundland delegation? I wonder why the Minister of Finance, the new Minister of Finance, didn't get up at the resolution at the Liberal convention and speak to the resolution concerning the changes to the EI system that were affecting the Province?

MR. MATTHEWS: I wasn't there.

MR. MANNING: Denying it is not going to work with me. I need more concrete evidence that you were not there. You are going to have to provide some more concrete evidence. The Minister of Finance has to know the effect the changes to the EI system have brought on this Province in the last four or five years. If he wasn't there himself, he should have had somebody there to speak for him. He should have had somebody there to speak to that resolution; a resolution that was brought forward from the Newfoundland delegation and they cannot find anybody to speak. The Minister of Mines and Energy never got up to speak.

The Member for Humber East - I was very surprised as I sat down and watched the CPAC channel where the Member for Humber East always had so much to say up there in the nosebleed section, but he couldn't find his way to the microphone at the Liberal convention to make a few comments about the EI system. I was very surprised when the Member for Humber East didn't get up. The Member from Bellevue - that didn't surprise me.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MANNING: That is a strange thing about that, up again. Why didn't you speak to the resolution?

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to clarify for the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, if he recalls, I don't know if it was on television or not but I sat in my seat and listened to the Right Honorable Jean Chrétien in his speech, who said we would have to make changes in the EI system as it affected Atlantic Canada and some of the northern regions of Canada. So we heard it directly from the Prime Minister of Canada himself that they were looking at changes in the EI system. In our discussions with the Prime Minister himself, he was assured that those changes would be coming into effect very soon. What more do we want? We heard from the Prime Minister himself.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Bellevue, you listened to the Prime Minister talk about the changes, whoop-de-do! We listened to him four years ago when he talked about the changes and he took $400 to $500 million out of this Province, the last time the Prime Minister got at the changes to the EI system.

I am not worried about what the Prime Minister said. I am not worried about what the federal Minister of Finance said. I am not even worried about what the federal Minister of Human Resources said. I am worried about what happened to all of your tongues when you were up there. I am wondering about the silence that was on the floor at the resolution session when the Newfoundland delegation - I wouldn't mind if the resolution came from British Columbia, or New Brunswick, or Prince Edward Island. The resolution came from the Newfoundland delegation, and nobody on that side of the House could get on their feet and make a comment about the resolution about the EI changes to this Province.

MR. MERCER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Just to inform the hon. member opposite, he keeps saying that this was a Newfoundland resolution.

MR. MANNING: The Newfoundland delegation put forward a resolution.

MR. MERCER: It was an Atlantic Provinces' resolution, sponsored by all four Atlantic Provinces, not just Newfoundland.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible) Atlantic Canada, I say to the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Humber East should have been on his feet at that resolution session, but he wasn't. I would like to know why nobody on that side of the House - he wasn't going to be sandbagged by getting up and making a comment on the changes to the EI system.

I am not finished. I am still going down through my list, because I am checking you off one by one to find out how come you weren't there, and I am giving you the opportunity to answer why you weren't there.

I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I am sure the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has concerns about the changes to the EI system in this Province. I am sure he has. I say that in all honesty; I am sure he has. I wonder why, when a resolution came to the floor of the Liberal convention in Ottawa that dealt with the changes to the EI system and the effect it is having on this Province, why he wasn't on his feet making comments on that.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MANNING: Here we go again. We are getting them one by one.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: I can answer that for the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. I spoke already about EI this afternoon. I wasn't in Ottawa that weekend on the convention so I couldn't stand and address the concerns.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: I accept the explanation from the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. It is very difficult to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) and I encourage you to keep it up.

MR. MANNING: All I will say is, don't rush out and buy a new suit just yet. Don't take advice from the Member for Bellevue about buying suits, thinking he is going to be in Cabinet. He has a whole closet full now and he is still not in Cabinet.

I am still not finished yet. I would like to know if the Member for Torngat Mountains was up at the Liberal convention in Ottawa. I am not sure if he was. If he was up at the Liberal convention in Ottawa, why didn't he get up and make some comments on the resolution that was brought forward about the EI changes to the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I am just asking questions. I am going through - everybody gets a fair shake. Don't try that bull with me. I am just asking a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ANDERSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On the point of order, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to advise the member that I was not a delegate at the convention. He can rest assured that I will certainly speak out for the people in my riding in the appropriate place, but I don't think that the place to do it is here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: As I said, Mr. Chairman, I would expect nothing less from the Member for Torngat Mountains. That is why if everybody was speaking out as he would -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Let me go through it now. I would like to know -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Chairman. I am not finished yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave denied.

MR. MANNING: I am not finished asking -

CHAIR: Order, please!

Your time is up and leave has been denied.

The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived or something. Is that the case, Government House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I close off debate, Mr. Chairman, for this.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2001, the sum of $1,117,899,200."

On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 2)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Interim Supply bill, Bill 2, be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that we call it 5:30 p.m. and that this House is now adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. Oh, we have to wait for the Lieutenant-Governor. I'm sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is here.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 2)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (A.M. House, C.M., M.D., LL.D., FRCPC): In Her Majesty's name I thank Her loyal subjects, I accept their benevolence and I assent to this bill.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I too on behalf of the government would like to thank hon. members for their benevolence and their largesse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I would move that we now call it 5:30 p.m. and that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. So moved, Mr. Speaker.

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