The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our proceedings, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today fifty-seven Grade 5 students, accompanied by teachers Ralph Cann and Kelly Burke; chaperones Jerome Bromley, Wade Strickland and Darlene Owens. The students are from Larkhall Academy in the District of St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today the Mayor of Grand Le Pierre, Mr. Paul Bolt, in the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order, or what I believe to be a point of privilege - sorry - and contempt for this House, a situation that happened in this House yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that yesterday the Member for Port de Grave, in his statements, not only called into question the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber West, dealing with conflict of interest, but in doing so, both directly and indirectly, called into question as well the integrity of the Commissioner of Members' Interests in his published findings, because much of what the member had said yesterday and in a press release he issued today are both non-factual and untrue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer members to a few quotations in terms of Marleau. For example, officers of this House enjoy certain privileges, as do members. It says, "Privilege Versus Contempt. Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a "breach of privilege" and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member..." - and I specifically draw Your Honour's attention to this - "...or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties...".

Mr. Speaker, on page 192 of Maingot, the authority on parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons and in our parliamentary democracy, he quotes Erskine May who says, "Each House also claims the right to punish actions which, while not breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its officers...".

Mr. Speaker, on page 196, just as a final reference, Your Honour, Maingot says, "...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his..." - or her - " ...‘parliamentary' duty, or which has a tendence, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence."

Mr. Speaker, yesterday - and this is the earliest possible time I could raise it because I just received Hansard, the official transcript of the House - the Member for Port de Grave said, and I quote, "Madam Speaker, the other issues comes down to a Statement of Disclosure. Both the Member for Humber West and myself were elected on the same day, back on June 19, 2001. Each and everyone of us in this hon. House had to file a Statement of Disclosure. However, there were months gone by when you could not get any information pertaining to the Leader of the Opposition." In a release today, he goes onto say: It is a fact that his initial disclosure of holdings did not get in on time.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests today, and he has refuted, categorically, the statements made by the Member for Port de Grave, and he has refuted them directly to me as the Opposition House Leader and an officer in this House, and he has indicated that the Member for Humber West and the Leader of the Opposition has fully disclosed all of his business holdings on time. He has fully disclosed to the satisfaction of the act, which this government brought in. They are the ones who set the standard, Mr. Speaker, and a standard I am happy to say today that the Leader of the Opposition not only met on time but met every aspect of that act.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, for us to be clear on what is really taking place here, and I will leave that to Your Honour to judge if a breach of privilege has occurred. What is clear is that the Member for Port de Grave, either knowingly - or he ought to know that the statements that he made both inside this House and outside this House were not true. Had he taken the time to even phone the Chief Electoral Officer or, for that matter, Mr. Speaker, even read the published documents that he produced for this House, he would have found out and knew they were not true.

It is important to note also, Mr. Speaker, that the functions of this Legislature, and if they are to proceed according to the rules that we apply to ourselves, then not only members but the independent officers of this House, which include the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioners of Members' Interests, their work must be viewed as being complete, that everybody he says are in compliance, are in compliance.

Mr. Speaker, finally let me say this, because any motion or any motion put towards you, whether a breach of privilege or contempt, must be held by a motion, must conclude with a motion. It is simply this: the fact of the matter that the member has raised the questions that are not true, non-factual and incorrect is further compounded by the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he is also an officer of this House. He is the Chair of Committees and on a regular basis sits in the Chair that you occupy, Mr. Speaker.

Two things must happen. Either the member, if his statements are true both inside this House and the ones he has made outside, either he is in possession of information that no one else is, including the Commissioner of Members' Interests, and if he is he must and he has an obligation, as an Officer of this House, to bring that information before the Commissioner of Members' Interests and to show where the Member for Humber West and Leader of the Opposition is not in compliance. Or, Mr. Speaker, my view is that he has no such information and that the Commissioner of Members' Interests report not only publicly but to me today is correct and that the member must stand and unequivocally apologize for this personal assault both on the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Humber West, and on the independent officer of this House, namely the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it is often quoted in fact in this House that privilege is a rare and special thing, and ought not to be brought up very often. The authorities quote time after time that privilege does not extend much beyond the freedom of speech. That is the basic privilege that members have in this House. The authorities, again, quote that to extend upon privilege is something that members ought to view with a great degree of caution.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member took up a great degree of time quoting Maingot and various other authorities about what a point of privilege is and what contempt is, and that it is punishable by the House. That is true, once it is proven that there is a breach of privilege or that there is contempt.

I would suggest that the hon. member came nowhere close to proving that it was a point of privilege or even a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman went on to say that a breach of privilege involves the performance of a parliamentary duty. There was nothing in what the hon. member said that affected the Leader of the Opposition from performing his parliamentary duty; not a thing in the world. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we had a case in this House some years ago where a person in the Opposition did not even declare their interest. Did not declare it.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the declaration of our interest that affects our parliamentary work as such. It is something that we do for propriety. It is something that we do to make sure that we are performing the administrative work of government properly, but in terms of the parliamentary duty there was nothing that the hon. member said or questioned that would affect the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, as far as saying something was not in on time, that is not a matter of privilege. Members are permitted to inquire as to whether or talk as to whether something was on time, and if we find out that was not correct, there is nothing in the point of privilege about that. It could be raised as something that was probably not accurate, and the hon. member could apologize for saying that in the sense that it was probably improper to say so, but nothing to do with the point of privilege, nothing to do with the point of order.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is simply a disagreement between two hon. members, and to suggest that it was a breach of privilege, that it was a contempt of the House, is certainly nowhere close.

I leave the ruling to Your Honour, but again wanting to make the point that the key with respect to a breach of privilege is to whether or not it affects a member in performing their parliamentary work, in pursuing their parliamentary activity, and I would suggest there was nothing in the member's comments on this side of the House that would affect, that would prevent, a member, the Leader of the Opposition in particular, from performing his parliamentary duty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the Opposition House Leader under advisement. I will review the comments by the Member for Port de Grave and report back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a moment in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr. Aiden Maloney, a native of King's Cove, for being named the 2003 Humanitarian of the Year by the Canadian Red Cross.

For over seven decades, Mr. Speaker, Aiden Maloney has been a tremendously active volunteer and humanitarian in this Province, and indeed the entire country. Whether it was collecting donations for the Red Cross in Ramea in the 1940s, or serving as the honourary Consul General of Japan fifty years later, Mr. Maloney has consistently demonstrated the highest quality of citizenship and volunteerism.

Among other things, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Maloney has served as Chairperson of the St. Clare's Mercy Hospital Board. Indeed, he helped establish the St. Clare's Hospital Foundation. He has collected monies for the Canadian Institute for the Blind, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Kidney Foundation, the Cancer Society, and the Heart Foundation. Mr. Maloney is truly an incredible and devoted volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, Aiden Maloney is a shining example of the generosity, of the kindness, of the dedication, and of the hard-working nature of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I would like to invite all members of this House to join me in congratulating this former member of the House for this outstanding lifetime achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the House of a great event which took place in Labrador West on the weekend of April 12 and 13.

A group of seniors, all women, up to eighty-nine years of age, were part of the second annual excursion to the Miron River Outfitting Lodge located in the wilderness about seventy miles from Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, they began their overnight trip by being bused from Labrador West to the Ashaunipi River. From there they got aboard a 1957, twelve passenger Bombardier snowmobile and travelled approximately twenty-five miles to the lodge. Upon arrival, they were treated to a lunch of rabbit and caribou soup followed, of course, by a large meal for supper comprised of traditional Newfoundland and Labrador cuisine.

Mr. Speaker, that evening we had a band brought to the lodge to provide music for as singalong and a dance with entertainment also being provided by Mrs. King, one of the seniors, with her accordion, and Cliff Chambers with his fiddle. During a break in the music, we had a huge bonfire which everyone thoroughly enjoyed.

Mr. Speaker, seniors in our communities have a great outlook on life and have a lot to offer our communities. We should all be doing more things in conjunction with them. Their zest for life, their ability to enjoy themselves, is contagious and, as organizers, we get as much enjoyment from the weekend as they do.

I would like to thank Mr. George Pardy of Miron River Outfitting Lodge and Phil Brake, the owner of the Snowmobile. Without either of these people's cooperation the weekend would not be possible.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, people from across the Province and people in this House will be able to see for themselves the great time that was had that weekend, because we were also accompanied by the film crew from Land and Sea and the show will be appearing as part of their fall lineup.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the names of the seniors into the record of the House. They were: Mrs. Joan Stamp, who is President of the Seniors' Organization in Labrador West; Mrs. Edna Loder, the eldest of the seniors; Mrs. Myrtle King; Mrs. Marion Walsh; Mrs. Clemmie Parsons; Mrs. Mary Rogers; and Mrs. Ella Hoffe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to offer congratulations to the entire production team associated with Etcetera 17, a musical production of students attending Mount Pearl Intermediate and Mount Pearl Senior High Schools.

Etcetera 17 opened last evening at the Mount Pearl Glacier and runs until Saturday. It is anticipated that as many as 5,000 friends, family and visitors will patronize this wonderful celebration of Mount Pearl's youth. In addition, approximately 2,000 primary and elementary children will attend the matinees.

The fact that as many as 7,000 patrons will attend the various performances is, in itself, a testament to the show's quality. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Etcetera 17, with its total cast of 229 students exalts and celebrates the creative artistry of Mount Pearl's youth.

Special congratulations are due, Mr. Speaker, to the musical director, Carl Goulding; the production manager, Jackie Goulding; the stage director, Robert Power; and to all those students who shared their knowledge and expertise in interpreting the music and choreographing the various selections.

Mr. Speaker, as former administrator at Mount Pearl Junior High, I can attest to the deserving accolades for which the Etcetera Shows have become known. Carl Goulding is not just an exceptional teacher and the 2002 recipient of the Prime Minister's Award for Excellence in Teaching, but a professional who has the rare ability to capture the imagination of the teenage mind and to inspire them to strive for personal excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this hon. House will join me in offering congratulations to the teachers, the entire cast and to the many volunteers associated with this year's production.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are well known for their tireless efforts in defending the rights and freedoms of our democratic society. Whether it has been one of the great world wars, major conflicts or peacekeeping missions, our people have always been there to do their part.

One of these people is Master Corporal Elaine Careen and I want to take a moment today to pay tribute to her in her role in defending world peace. Elaine Careen is from Point Lance, St. Mary's Bay and is the daughter of Neil and Rosemary. She has been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces since October, 1990. She has served in army units in both Edmonton and Petawawa. In 1998 she completed a six month tour in Bosnia. Elaine has just finished an eight month stint in the Persian Gulf fighting the war on terrorism aboard the HMCS Montreal.

Just before leaving for home from the Gulf of Oman on April 2, the crew of HMCS Montreal was called on to help save the life of an American sailor who apparently had suffered a heart attack aboard a U.S. navy troop transport. The rescue crew were in the air within minutes, and ship medic Master Corporal Elaine Careen was lowered to the American ship because the helicopter could not land on the deck crowded with trucks and other gear.

Soon after the rescue, the Montreal began the 18,000 kilometre passage home. Elaine herself arrived home on Sunday morning to her hometown of Point Lance - population by the way, of approximately 170 people. Elaine received a heros welcome when she was met by a motorcade and ushered home to her waiting family and friends. Her mother, Rosemary, had a great boiler of Sunday dinner waiting on the stove for her also.

Mr. Speaker, the family of Elaine are proud of her accomplishments. The people of Point Lance and the Cape Shore area are definitely proud of her accomplishments also. I am sure that we all are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in welcoming Master Corporal Elaine Careen safely home from her latest mission abroad and congratulating her once again on a job well done and ensure her that her commitment and dedication to the Canadian Armed Forces is definitely making a difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the volunteers of the Pentecostal Senior Citizens Home in Clarke's Beach and also to the administration for sponsoring a Volunteer Recognition Night on Wednesday, April 30, 2003. I make special reference to staff members: Ms Aldena Hillier-Legge, Director of Social Work; Mr. Paul Sheppard, Recreation Specialist; and Ms Christa Greene, Recreation Therapist for their organization of the event, indeed, to the entire staff of the home who went over and beyond to provide a beautiful sit-down meal and provide certificate-awards to a core group of volunteers second to none.

The theme for the night: Volunteers, A Gift of the Community, was highlighted in the program throughout the night. A resident, Pastor Andrew Palmer, opened the evening with grace followed by Chaplain, Pastor Eli Petten, with prayer and song. Official greetings were given by Mayor Elizabeth Moore, Clarke's Beach and Pastor Moral Bess representing the Board of Directors. Music was supplied by organist, Goldie Gillingham, Corey Legge and Pastor Mrs. Linda Petten. The highlight of the evening was a moving rendition of a beautiful hymn by soloist, Glenda Hussey.

It was during the presentation of certificates and awards, Mr. Speaker, that the dedication and commitment of the volunteer corp was truly revealed as individuals and groups from the surrounding area were recognized for their outstanding service. Without doubt, clearly hundreds and, indeed, thousands of hours were contributed by those present, hours devoted to brighten the lives of the residents of this home.

I would certainly ask that the members of this House join with me in congratulating the volunteer corp of the Pentecostal Senior Citizens Home in Clarke's Beach for their dedicated service to the seniors of the home and to thank the staff for organizing an appropriate appreciation night.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, government recognizes the important connection between healthy nutrition and children's readiness to learn.

The St. John's School Lunch Association has publicly stated that they are experiencing financial difficulty and will not be able to continue their program to the end of the June.

The Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education provides an annual grant of $75,000 to the St. John's School Lunch Association, in three installments of $25,000 each.

In response to their current financial situation, my department will be advancing the Association with $50,000 of their annual grant today, which will alleviate their immediate concern so that there will be no interruption in the delivery of this important service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Government is also committed, Mr. Speaker, to working with the Association and its corporate and community partners to help identify additional sources of funding to resolve this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and I would say to the minister: What a difference, Minister, a day makes. What a difference a day makes, because I sat in this House yesterday and the Member for St. John's West brought forth a private member's resolution to deal with this situation and it seems like it is no coincidence, I say to the minister, that is what spurred this government to come forth with the funding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I have to congratulate the St. John's Lunch Association for what they do, but I ask the minister, what does this mean for next year's funding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Have they got to depend on $25,000 next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The School Lunch Association sent a letter to parents a couple of weeks ago saying they had a $32,000 shortfall. The advancing of money from next year's budget is not going to help them next year. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, there are over 70,000 students in Newfoundland and Labrador who do not have a School Lunch Program at all, and this minister and this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - (inaudible) starting to do something about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform members that earlier today I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to express concerns on the risk that oil pollution poses to our coast and the coastal waters of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our coasts are highly vulnerable to oil pollution. It is estimated that off the South Coast alone we lose in excess of 100,000 seabirds in oil every year; 100,000 each year. A 1990 federal report has stated clearly that the risk of marine oil spills is highest in eastern Canada, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that Placentia Bay is considered by many to be the most likely place in Canada for a major oil spill.

This risk has only increased over the intervening years, since 1990, with increased vessel traffic off our coasts. It is estimated that in 2003, there will be close to 1,000 individual tanker voyages in Placentia Bay alone.

Mr. Speaker, the position of this government is that we need action from our federal colleagues in several critical areas.

Firstly, prevention of oil entering the sea. To this end, this Province has been pushing the federal agencies responsible for regulation and protection of our marine environment. Prevention of illegal discharges can be greatly enhanced by increased surveillance, enforcement and fines. We need our federal colleagues to express a willingness to stay the course and see prosecutions through to the end.

Secondly, I told the committee members that I was not comfortable with the state of preparedness to respond to a major oil disaster off our coasts. We know that only 15 per cent of the Canadian Coast Guard's national emergency response program resources are allocated to the Newfoundland region. In my view, this is unacceptably low considering the high level of risk. We understand that the Canadian Coast Guard will soon initiate a risk analysis for oil spills off our south coast. Yet, this risk analysis will not include a review of the present oil spill regime response. This current regime has been in place for over ten years and considering the increased level of vessel activity off our coasts, it is safe to assume that this regime may no longer represent what is appropriate. I have called on our federal colleagues to address the issue of preparedness in the risk analysis. If this is not done, in my view, the risk analysis exercise is fundamentally flawed.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that our coastal waters falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, should a spill occur, this oil will wash up on our shores and then it will be the people and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who will have to deal with the problem. I urge our federal colleagues to hear our concerns and to take appropriate action.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good news to hear that the minister had gone before the review panel. The first word, however, we heard from this government opposing Ottawa was last year when the former minister took his trip to Spain to see an oil spill firsthand. It is not only the ships that pass through our waters that pump their bilges, it also the growing oil industry.

In 1997 I asked questions in this House, in 1998, and again in 1999. We had the former Premier Tobin who said: the equipment is here in Newfoundland. The coasts are already covered. We should be happy the work is already done. The former Minister of Environment, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, the people of this Province need to know there is, in fact, a great deal of planning and equipment in place. Those were responses to my questions. Make no wonder the equipment is not here, Mr. Speaker. The equipment is not here because this government did not have the foresight to see beyond the tip of their noses the fact that our oil industry is growing and we need this equipment off our coasts. This government is to blame for this equipment not being in place in this Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, and say we agree that this poses a great danger to the seas around our Province. If we look at the disasters from around the world, like the Exxon Valdez in Alaska and the recent disaster in Spain, which, by the way, the former Minister of Environment travelled with a delegation to look at that firsthand and to put plans in place to deal with a given situation in this Province should it occur. We have not heard from the minister or from the department to date, the results of that trip and what plans they are indeed formulating to deal in the event of a disaster off our coasts.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, it would be hard for the minister to say that we rely upon the Coast Guard when we have read in the papers in recent months and heard on the news about Coast Guard ships being tied up simply because they do not have the money to put fuel in the boats to sail. So it is an important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for governments of this country to enforce and bring in greater regulations and safety conditions regarding the ships that are sailing in our waters, to make sure they are up to a suitable standard of safety before they are permitted to bring their ships into our coastal waters.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: It is not a ministerial statement, this is a member's statement. I forgot to mention to the Leader of the NDP - I spoke to the Opposition House Leader - but I am sure the NDP member will not object when he hears what it is. If I have the permission, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this afternoon to offer condolences to the family of our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, Mr. Wiseman, the Member for Topsail, on the death of his mother. Mrs. Florence Wiseman passed away on May 5, in her eighty-ninth year. The funeral services are being held this afternoon at St. Alban's Anglican Church in Bonavista North.

Mrs. Wiseman was a dear friend. She was a great lady, dynamic, energetic and compassionate, and overall a great citizen of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members and offer the Wiseman family our condolences and our sympathy.

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

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

I know for all members in the House who have lost a parent, a mother or father - I know, I lost my own father some years ago - it is not an easy time, no matter what the age. Certainly, we want to be associated with the Government House Leader's comments and offer, on behalf of the Official Opposition, our sincere condolences to the family, and in particular to the Member for Topsail, for the loss that he and his family have just experienced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Government House Leader for bringing it to the attention of the House and giving us all an opportunity to join in offering our condolences to the Member for Topsail and his family for the loss of his mother. As the Opposition House Leader has said, it is a very sad moment when one loses a parent, and we all feel for the Member for Topsail on this occasion.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to be clear that, this being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, obviously when the clock strikes 3 o'clock we must proceed to private members' business. I just want to know, from the Government House Leader, to ensure that Question Period has its full thirty minutes, if we can provide leave to ensure that when Question Period starts that it concludes thirty minutes later, even though it is after 3 o'clock, and then we can proceed right to private members' business immediately following that?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) dare deprive the Opposition or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador these exciting thirty minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In his various interviews over the last twenty-four hours, the Premier has implied that I was breaking the law by speaking with the fishermen in Minister Byrne's office, in order to obtain their views.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for St. Barbe, and I did not illegally enter the premises. I, in fact, spoke with the federal minister's officials who were there at the time and approved of our presence.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice and Attorney General please tell this House if he feels that I, or fellow MHAs, broke the law by speaking with fishermen in Minister Byrne's office, with the approval of the minister's officials and without being told at any time by those in charge that I was trespassing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. It is not a legal question. It is a political question. Mr. Speaker, the point that I made, I did not suggest and have never suggested - and I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, through you, that he might check his facts before he asks the questions. I have never ever suggested that any politician has broken the law. What I was saying is that, by being in the presence of people - and maybe he might, as a lawyer, suggest whether or not these particular people could be charged with some kind of offence by being in an office when they are not supposed to be there, by tearing the doors off the front of buildings, by breaking down flag poles, are these things legal or illegal.

The point that I have been making is, by being in their presence and wanting to suggest by being there that he is supportive of them, he is indeed condoning and sanctioning an illegal action that others are undertaking. I did not say anything about the action of the members themselves. I said their presence, their very presence, suggests that they see no problem, no difficulty, with the action being taken.

Now, to use his own questioning: Is that a fact, yes or no? Is the presence there intended to condone the action and support it, or is he down there pretending to support it and suggesting at the same time that they should leave the building because it is illegal and improper? You cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has, in fact, implied that I was breaking the law and has, in fact, stated that I broke the law. Mr. Speaker, the Premier now has also stated that by being there, then, we are therefore condoning the tearing down of doors and other destruction in that particular premises. If that is the case, and we are perceived as condoning vandalism and the breaking down of doors, can you tell me if your Minister of Justice who was there the following day, your Minister of Fisheries who are there the following day, the former Minister of Fisheries who was there the following day, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if they also condone law-breaking and vandalism and interference with the administration of justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to be too cute by half. The question is this, and the whole point is this: I have implied nothing. I have stated quite clearly for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador where I stand. The question is: What about the Leader of the Opposition? Where does he stand on this issue, Mr. Speaker? You cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: You cannot try, Mr. Speaker, no one can try to confuse the issue by talking about interference with the judicial system or interference with justice. There have been no instructions given. Those people who have the responsibility to enforce the law have made their own decisions in Newfoundland and Labrador the same as they have made their own decisions in New Brunswick, as to whether or not they would go out and lay charges against people who have done some things, that the Leader of the Opposition, as a lawyer, would know - that if someone wanted to lay some charges there is certainly a basis for laying a charge when somebody forcibly tears the doors off a public building that they do not own. Mr. Speaker, he would surely suggest that someone could lay a charge about that, if they chose to do so. No one has decided to lay any charges. So you cannot have it both ways. You cannot walk down and stand with the people. My colleague stood with the people because we support them and we tell the whole world that we support them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We do not try to fudge it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We do not try to excuse it. We support them. Does he support them or not, Mr. Speaker? That is the question everyone would like to have answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Your colleague, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for the Province supports tearing the doors off buildings? That is what you just said, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is exactly what you said. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister of Justice has to say about that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in trying to make the cod closure his election issue, the Premier encouraged individuals to break the law by telling them he would shield them from prosecution. He said: we are not going to be facilitating federal officials, prosecuting people who break the law. Mr. Speaker, I was in fact very pleased yesterday to hear the Minister of Justice -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - do what he had to do and rein in that Premier during Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Justice said, and I quote, "As the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, you take no directions from the Premier when it comes to the proper administration of law and justice in this Province."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney General, if the Premier cannot instruct the Minster of Justice and the Attorney General not to facilitate federal officials from prosecuting people who break the law then how can the government protect them from prosecution as the Premier suggests?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and I will not try to politicize it as some people are trying to do. It does require some commentary.

First of all, I think the Leader of the Opposition is well aware under Beauchesne - I believe that is the rules that we follow here - clauses 408 and 410, on page 120 and 122, that you do not ask a question in Question Period which requires a legal opinion. That is the first thing, which is definitely what his first question off the mark asked. So, if we are going to get into legal niceties maybe he should follow the rules of the House too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the concerns here, one the problems we have here is somewhere or another the Leader of the Opposition missed this parade. He wanted to be in front of the parade but he missed the parade; and because of legal niceties that he is now trying to warp, he is trying to take this issue down another side road, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not stand for it. The fishery issue is the issue right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: The fishery issue is the issue in this Province right now. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition does not appreciate it or want to admit, that it is owned - as someone said this morning in the media - by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: I cannot answer for that, but I can answer when it comes to the Attorney General's responsibilities. I will, as the Attorney General, uphold the laws and the administration of justice in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I refer the hon. minister to Beauchesne §410.(5), "The primary purpose of the Question Period is the seeking of information and calling the Government to account." That is what it is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: We do not get answers to the questions. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. That has been going on for two years.

Mr. Speaker, last night in an interview Premier Grimes said - and I quote him in reference to the fishermen: Whatever actions they will take, we will support them, we will defend them and we will try to protect them. In reference to the actions of government, he said: Whatever it takes, we will do.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, in light of the Premier's public statement, quote: To do whatever it takes. Will he, as Attorney General, condone lawbreaking and impede federal prosecutions as is suggested by the Premier? Will the Attorney General support the Premier breaking the law if the Premier feels that is what it takes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the Leader of the Opposition might want to go back to an ad from a law firm that he is affiliated with that says: Who will fight for you? And what will we fight over, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you, clearly this, I stand by the words that I said, and this government stands by the words, that we will support and defend and try to protect these people in every way we can, because our support for them is not equivocal, it is not limited; we are not going to support them so far.

The Leader of the Opposition is willing to condone and support certain actions that can be described and are, in fact, illegal. When people go out and tear a door off a public building, he is willing to stand up in their presence, and by his very presence, saying: That is okay. I condone that. I support you so far, but if you go out and take a fish, I cannot support you in taking a fish.

So you cannot suggest that it is the rule of law, but say this law is okay to be broken, and I support that; but this law, I cannot support breaking that one.

I do not support and condone breaking any laws, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I never advised in council, but I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that unlike the Leader of the Opposition this morning when asked by a national radio reporter: So you wouldn't agree with this protest fishery then? The answer from the Leader of the Opposition: No, I am not saying I don't agree with a protest fishery (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: No. So what is the answer, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What he neglected to read was that if I was Premier of this Province, I would never condone law-breaking in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: And I will not condone it just to get elected like you will! Half sentences!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I have another question for the Attorney General. It will be interesting to see whether he stands on his feet and answers this question.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice stated quite properly when he accepted the office of Attorney General he "...swore to uphold the laws of the land...", and, "That will done." He also said, "That is part of the job and the day that I cease to be prepared to do that I shall leave this job." I commend him for that responsible and correct statement because that is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, would the Attorney General support the position of his Premier, if the Premier attempts to interfere or obstruct or prevent federal Justice officials from prosecuting illegal activity? If, in fact, the Premier takes that action, would you leave your job as you said and will you step down from Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I refer hon. members to Beauchesne when phrasing questions and asking questions in the House, questions ought not to be hypothetical and I fear that the hon. member now is getting into a hypothetical situation and he ought not to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated that he will interfere with federal officials in prosecuting illegal activity. If he does that, will you step down from your position as Minister of Justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the Leader of the Opposition today so concerned about the fishermen that he supported by standing in their presence last week, and with his very presence condoning the actions they had taken to date, several of which he would know, as a lawyer, were against the law if the law was fully applied.

Mr. Speaker, the issues are this: What does he want to do to help support the government in getting the issue addressed properly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He says he wants to have the decision reversed. So do we. One of the things that the fishermen themselves say they are going to do is protest fish. When he was asked by the reporter: So, you would not agree with this protest fishery then? Now, being onside and being supportive: So, you would not agree with this protest fishery? No, I am not saying I do not agree with a protest fishery. So, what is the message? The opposite of not disagreeing means you agree. What he is saying to the reporter on the national news is: I agree with a protest fishery.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want a protest fishery. We want the decision changed. We want a legal fishery in place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We want the EI benefits extended now. We want a proper buyout option. We want early retirement. That is what this debate is about, Mr. Speaker, but if wants to carry the mail for the federal government today or somebody else, go ahead and do it because you cannot stand with everybody. You must stand with somebody. I stand with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are being done an injustice today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible), that is what you stand for, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not about a debate, this is about trying to find an election issue. You are fooling nobody on that one, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: While he has been trying to make political hay out of this issue on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, he neglected to advise the fishermen and women of this Province of the true consequences of their actions.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Justice another question. He has got himself in a tight spot and he doesn't want to get on his feet. Lets ask him a very straightforward question so he can answer it.

Can the Minister of Justice please explain to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador what will happen if they are convicted of illegal fishing? Will they lose their boats, will they lose their licenses, will they lose their gear, will they receive a criminal record, will they end up with fines or could they end up in jail at the end of the day? Because those are the consequences of what that government is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty clear, I think, to anyone listening in and watching today, that we have one person here who has given up and assumes that this decision will not be reversed, and that is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. We haven't given up. The fish harvesters and plant workers and the people impacted in the communities haven't given up.

His strong words, which I stated before, his strong words and his last message in Ottawa was: Mr. Minister, understand one thing - this is what he said, Mr. Speaker - understand one thing on behalf of all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador's all-party committee, the one thing - and this was the last message he left and I was proud that he did - the one thing that is not acceptable is a closure of the fishery. We all applauded him, Mr. Speaker. The one thing that is not acceptable is a closure of the fishery.

Now, he is back saying: The decision is final. These people, if they fish, it is obviously going to be illegal. This is the person who has given up, instead of standing with us like he suggested he was doing in a Private Member's Motion last Wednesday, one week ago, after having given up and coming back onside. The first part of the resolution was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - the decision should be reversed. Today, he is after giving up. We are still working to find a solution. We are not interested in an election, we are interested in solving a problem in the best interests of our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, in September of 2002, the Minister of Health and Community Services released the Strategic Health Plan wherein the minister acknowledged, and I quote directly from the plan: A new strategy is needed for services in the area of psychiatry and mental health. It goes on to say: It is well recognized that the existing level of service is underdeveloped.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the people of this Province today his action plan for mental health services? I ask him not to simply say that he is waiting for the results of the two most recent judicial enquiries, but tell us exactly what his plans are for mental health services in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I will try and respond above the ramble opposite coming from the Leader of the Opposition. Maybe, if he is interested - it is a very serious question - maybe he should listen to the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Not having a great day.

To the hon. member opposite, I would say I was very pleased to see, not that long ago when I released the Strategic Health Plan for the people of this Province, the hon. member opposite was pooh-poohing and saying, what a waste of time, what a silly document. There is nothing here but motherhood stuff.

In fact, since the document has been released, as I stated in this House yesterday, all of the health care providers in this Province have applauded the document that we produced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will go further. Just within the last week, I had a telephone conversation with a physician, a Newfoundland physician from this Province, who is presently working in the U.S.A., who contacted me on another matter and said to me how proud she was to see a document produced by her government in Newfoundland, a document that could be held up as a model for everyone in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: It is good to see that the hon. member opposite is finally coming to recognize that it is an important document.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the question that is raised is important and, as mentioned, we are moving forward to deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, when we did the Estimates, the hon. member asked the same question. I said to him then, the strategy that is being produced, we are awaiting the outcome of the two judicial enquiries that are ongoing and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - surely, he would not suggest that the information that will be produced we should not consider in finalizing our strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that if the physician he spoke to in the U.S. was so proud of Newfoundland and Labrador, they would be still here in the Province practicing instead of being driven out by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in September of 2001, the minister released a report and the report was entitled: Valuing Mental Health. The minister's own department described the paper as: A Framework to Support the Development of a Provincial Mental Health Policy for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, within that same report, further acknowledged that the report represents the view and efforts of a large number of groups and individuals. It goes on to say it is a broad-based consultation process that was initiated in 1999.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Can the minister tell the people of the Province why - now here we are in May of 2003, almost two years past the release of that report, and almost four years past the consultation process - why is it that we are sitting here now and still do not have a good mental health strategy for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say to the people of the Province that if all it took - if it were just rhetoric, then the hon. member opposite, it would not take him too long to produce a document that would be acceptable to everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the tactics yesterday, that the hon. members opposite were standing up and decrying, as we heard here today, some of the comments that were being made on this side of the House.

In fact yesterday in debate, in trying to speak to the very important issues related to health care, and as the minister with responsibility for that, the hon. member opposite standing on a point of order and taking away time that I had allocated to me to have an opportunity as a member in this House. So, if you want to talk about infringing on privileges, then I would say to hon. members opposite to look at that and allow every hon. member the opportunity to participate in debate. Quite frankly, I did not appreciate yesterday not having the opportunity to conclude my remarks, because the hon. member not only precluded that but also went on to say they we would not grant leave to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to the issue at hand - and it is a very important issue, and it is an issue that we have been proceeding with for some time, as the hon. member has mentioned, and doing it, as we have as a government, in consultation with all of the health care providers and all of the interest groups that are out there.

Mr. Speaker, we do not operate in a vacuum. We work with everyone who has an interest and a position in this. We work closely with them and will in time develop a strategy that I am sure will be accepted by everyone in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that any time he stands in this House and makes statements that are not accurate, then I will stand on a point of order any time to correct that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, last year, in September, the Minister of Health stood in this House and said that by the end of 2002-2003 his department would have completed a review of the current Mental Health Act. I ask the minister if he would now table that evaluation for the review of this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this minister and this government have tried to take counsel and to receive information from wherever and whenever it is available. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the hon. member would suggest that opportunities are not provided.

Again, I take exception to his comment that I was stating and presenting evidence yesterday in debate that was not accurate, but I will have an opportunity to speak to that later on. Quite frankly, I will be quite pleased to lay out the position with regard to the MRI to everyone in this Province because I think they need to know where that hon. member stood and the Leader of the Opposition stood, and everyone opposite.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue at hand, it is quite strange to think that he is saying that there is not the opportunity here for a dialogue and the exchange of information. Just today, I had arranged with the officials of my department to hold a briefing for that hon. member, to brief him on a piece of legislation coming before this House dealing with privacy. That is the openness of this government. That is the commitment of the government, to try and do what is right for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

We, in the New Democratic Party, recognize and support and share the determination of the fishery workers and the fishermen's union to get a reversal of Minister Thibault's disastrous decision on the cod closure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We also recognize that civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest, but it has serious consequences.

Is this Premier saying that the only option now open to the fishery workers of this Province is a protest fishery? Is he admitting that he has burnt all his bridges with the Government of Canada, with the Prime Minister, going so far as to call him irresponsible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might point out that the actions taken to date by people directly impacted involved with these decisions have been ones that they have taken of their own volition, with their own counsel, with the advice of the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers, with their legal advice that they give them, because I believe the member also, as a lawyer, would understand that some of the things that have been done could have seen charges laid if the rule of law, as the Leader of the Opposition would say, has to be supreme. If that is the only thing, then some of these people should already be charged and, in fact, their actions have been condoned by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the NDP suggests he supports some of the things that they have done as well.

We have burned no bridges. The Prime Minister of the country yesterday - and this is important. I have written him, Mr. Speaker, for clarification. I listened to the question that was asked - and the Leader of the Opposition finds this very funny, Mr. Speaker. He is over there laughing. He finds this to be a real chuckle.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, for the people of the Province.

The Prime Minister was asked a question - it is the Yuk Yuk club, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says. It is the Yuk Yuk club. That is how seriously he thinks of this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is important to state this. The Prime Minister was asked: How do you feel about a Premier advising people to break the law? Now, that was what he was asked. That has never happened, and everybody in this Legislature knows that. The Leader of the Opposition just laughed again. That is how seriously he takes the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Question Period has ended.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are into Private Members' Day but I wanted to raise a point of order re Question Period, and assure the Opposition that we will not allow this to come out of the time.

I wanted to make a point of order because the Leader of the Opposition, I know, finds some difficulty in adapting to the rules laid down for questions.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, obviously, is of the belief, of the opinion, that when he submits a question to a minister, that minister must answer. I want to point out clearly that is not the case, and point out Beauchesne on page 123, §418, which clearly states, "The Speaker has stated, ‘Hon. Members may not realize it but questions are actually put to the Government. The Government decides who will answer.' "

I want to quote another, §419, which says, "The Prime Minister..." - in this case, naturally, we would substitute the Premier - "...answers for the government as a whole and is entitled to answer any question relating to any ministerial portfolio and matter of policy."

Lastly, §420, the same page, "The Speaker has stated, ‘Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister, but it cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it'."

Mr. Speaker, these are the rules and the Leader of the Opposition ought to follow them like every other member and ought not to be commenting when the questions are put to a minister and a different minister answers, or the Premier. Those are the rules, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House and in my role as Opposition House Leader, I am not going to leave the remarks of the Government House Leader unchallenged when they deserve to be challenged.

For example, the Government House Leader forgot to tell everybody in this House and who may be watching, a number of things along the same rules. The primary purpose of Question Period is seeking information. That is what the Leader of the Opposition did. Questions should relate to some matters of urgency. I believe the questions he asked today about the fishery and implications of breaking law, in my book, Mr. Speaker, relate to some matter of urgency.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it says ministers may be questioned only in relation to their current portfolios. I do not know about anybody else, but certainly the Leader of the Opposition today, when asking questions to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, asked him questions specifically to matters that related to his portfolio.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. As you did today when you felt that a question was hypothetical, you reminded members. Other than that, we take guidance from you and not from the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has ruled on many occasions in the past that members can direct questions to ministers but it is entirely up to the government who answers those questions. Questions cannot be directed to minister who are not responsible for a certain portfolio, but the Premier can answer for any minister or for any question put to the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day and the Chair will now call upon the hon. Member for St. John's West, I believe.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I was speaking with the Executive Director of the School Lunch Association today as it pertained to the statement made by the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. By that Association accepting the $50,000 now, he will be reducing next year's grant from the government from $75,000 to $25,000. This will seriously compromise the sustainability of the program.

The School Lunch Association cannot operate the School Lunch Program like that. What will they have to look forward to next year?

So, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the political posturing by the government and in the interest of keeping this program going for the 3,000 children who take advantage of its services, we will proceed with our private member's motion. I will read the motion:

WHEREAS the School Lunch Association makes available nutritious lunches on a daily basis to 3,000 school children from twelve schools in the St. John's metro area, and an average of 1,600 children avail of this service each day; and

WHEREAS it is known that more than 26 per cent of children in this Province live in poverty and go to school hungry each day; and

WHEREAS it has been demonstrated in several reports, including the report of the all-party committee of this House, that hungry children do not have the same capacity to learn, which often results in them dropping out of school and, thereby, perpetuating the cycle of poverty; and

WHEREAS the School Lunch Association, unless it receives $30,000 funding immediately, will have to shut down at the end of May, thus depriving these children from receiving nutritious lunches during the month of June;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador consider providing the necessary funding to allow the School Lunch Association to carry on for the month of June - the end of the school year.

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward today is a very important one. The outcome will decide whether a hot lunch will be available in the St. John's area for approximately 3,000 school children for the month of June. These lunches will be provided by the School Lunch Association, an association that has been providing nutritious meals to school children since 1989 when it began the program in just one school. It has since expanded to twelve schools in the St. John's Metro area.

The program is available to all children in the schools it serves, which includes approximately 3,000 children. It does not discriminate. There is no stigma attached. In order to participate, children submit an envelope. No one can tell whether there is money inside or not. The suggested price for each meal is $2.50, but if a child submits an envelope with less than $2.50, or even no money at all, they still receive a meal. In many cases, this is the best meal the child will eat that day.

These meals will not be provided, however, if the School Lunch Association does not receive an infusion of money by the middle of May. This will result in no lunches for the children who avail of this service for almost the full month of June, the end of the school year. It is not a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, a mere $30,000.

The Association knew there would be a struggle financially this year. They looked at more inexpensive foods, but they could not go that route because they did not want to compromise the nutrition of the children.

Mr. Speaker, we know, much to our shame, that more than 26 per cent of the children in this Province live in poverty; and we know that many children go to school hungry each day; and we know that children who are hungry do not have the same capacity to learn.

Teachers in the schools that participate in the School Lunch Program report that in-class behaviour, attention span, and overall attendance has improved since the program began.

Yesterday in the lobby of the Confederation Building, the Minister of Education chaired a presentation by Kids Eat Smart, and that fact was reiterated. Children with nutritious food in their stomachs do much better in school.

Patricia Canning, in her report, Special Matters - the Report of the Review of Special Education, was very clear on the effect of poverty as it relates to the education of children. I quote, "Poverty with its host of attendant problems, places children at risk of school failure. In this Province, at least 25 per cent of children are growing up in poverty, placing this issue at the heart of this review of special education. These students are at risk of school failure for reasons which are far beyond their control. The extraordinarily high proportion of environmentally at-risk students in our schools has profound implications for the system's ability to meet the needs of all students. Without appropriate intervention for economically disadvantaged children before school and during the school years this province will continue to experience low levels of achievement and special education will never be able to meet the demands placed upon it."

Mr. Speaker, the author refers to appropriate interventions. I would suggest, without putting words in her mouth, that Patricia Canning would certainly consider the School Lunch Program for the month of June as one such appropriate intervention.

In the motion I have referred to hunger being a deterrent to learning, resulting in dropouts, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Let me once again refer to Patricia Canning's report and I quote, "Low socio-economic status is strongly and consistently associated with poor academic performance and, in turn, students who perform poorly in school, many of whom will eventually drop out, will have difficulty changing their economic status and that of their children."

The report also refers to a five-year study of 4,500 children. The results showed that, "By the time most of these children in the study had entered grade five, close to one half of those in the lowest socio-economic category were in special education classes or behind one or two grade levels."

In the report Ms Canning also refers to an article by Jackson, 1995; and Saleh, 1991, which argues that, "Children who are economically and socially disadvantaged and experience such things as inadequate nutrition and housing are also at risk of developing behaviour problems.

Mr. Speaker, these are not my words. They are the words of the experts and they clearly demonstrate the results of the lack of proper nutrition.

Is this what we want for our children? Is this what is espoused in the so-called bold new Strategic Social Plan? It is bad enough that this Province bears the shame of having the highest percentage of child poverty and - as is shown in the social audit - the percentage of child poverty is rising. Mr. Speaker, that is bad enough, but when we are in a situation where the government can clearly do something to solve at least a portion of the problem - and I would suggest, to appropriately intervene - then it should jump at the opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, it can do so for such a small price, $30,000. We all know of instances recently where money is being spent a lot less wisely.

Mr. Speaker, I place this motion before the House of Assembly today because I feel it is a very serious matter. The future of our Province is our children. Our children are the responsibility of their parents, the schools and the larger community. That larger community is us. If this Province is to do well, its children must be educated. It is incumbent on all of us to see that all of our children receive the benefit of a good education, and that includes the children who live in poverty.

I will quote again, as I have done several times in this House of Assembly, what one child said to me when I visited a school a few years ago, because the message is as profound today as it was then. When asked what poverty meant, the child replied: It means pretending you forgot your lunch.

Madam Speaker, if the School Lunch Association has to close its doors at the end of this month, how many children will have to pretend they forgot their lunch during the month of June?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise in this House and respond to the resolution at hand.

Madam Speaker, there are many things surrounding this resolution that we should look at and, I think, two issues are apparent today. Number one is the immediate situation. It has been reported in the media that there will be a crises, more or less, that the School Lunch Program will come to an end very shortly, at the end of May, unless some funds are injected into that program. So, I guess, what we need to look at first is the immediate reaction. How best can we look at this problem and make sure that this program is not interrupted? Well, what the general public may not know is the commitment by this government to the School Lunch Program in this Province.

I would like to speak on the department's perspective, Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. For many years we have been providing to the St. John's School Lunch Association $75,000 from my department, but that is not the only area of donations for the School Lunch Association Program. The School Lunch Association Program in St. John's obtains funds from corporations and organizations. Apart from that, the Department of Human Resources and Employment part of government funds the Kids Eat Smart Foundation Program $500,000 every year. In recent days, they have held discussions with the St. John's School Lunch Association, and they have decided, on they own, to provide $10,000 extra to the St. John's School Lunch Association to assist them in this manner.

Madam Speaker, the $75,000 annual grant that comes from this department is always taken in three installments, and they are scattered throughout the school year. It would be a solution at hand and very easy, one that we can all see today, if they were able to access that money now because now is when they need it. So, I have instructed my officials today to process a cheque in the amount $50,000, part of their $75,000 annual grant. That will be given to the St. John's School Lunch Association. So there is no need for any child, who now accesses this service, to do without and they can have no interruption in this service to the end of this school year.

Now, we also know that there is a long-term financing problem with this service, and they have made that known. But, what we do not know is the fact that there are several aspects to this service that we need to learn more about. We want to look at the demand of this service. We want to look at the operation of this service, and we want to also investigate and see what corporate donations can be accessed. Because I know - this is a motherhood issue. Anyone who stands in this House and talks about a school lunch program understands that the most important people in our society are the ones who generally cannot speak for themselves. We all want to make sure, every member in this House standing today, that our children are going to school well-fed and they have a nutritious diet, and they are ready to learn. That is the key objective for all members in this House.

This morning I had an opportunity to visit a school on Topsail Road, Hazelwood Elementary. The Grade 6 class out there are creating an awareness. They are actually molding soup bowls. They have done this in connection with Devon House who have helped them. They are selling these soup bowls for $20. They will be providing at suppertime this evening soup in those soup bowls for those who want to go and want to buy their bowls.

So there are many aspects of providing nutritious lunches for our children at school. It differs from the Avalon to all over our wonderful Province. Many areas in our Province have a breakfast program, a lunch program, or a nutritious snack program. They are all looked after in various aspects. Some of them are done through volunteering, and many groups within communities take on projects such as recycling. Sometimes in schools the students will actually gather their tins and bottles and so on and they will use the money obtained from recycling to inject directly into a school lunch program.

Then we have to look at corporations. We all know that the corporate donorship in this Province is absolutely terrific. Every demand that is out there corporations offer their support immediately. It was only this morning I heard on the radio that McDonalds across Newfoundland and Labrador are offering $25,000 to the flooding situation in Badger. I would know first-hand, having gone through that flooding situation February 15, individual and corporate donors are superior in this Province. We are known right straight across the country for our kindness, compassion and humanity that we express to each other. So that is being done at a corporate level and an individual level.

Madam Speaker, I see church groups. I see them all over our wonderful Province wanting to do something for our students in school because there is nothing worse than to be discriminated in school; knowing that a friend next to you has a lunch and you do not have one, or a friend next to you might have a better lunch than you have. So it is nothing worst than to come to school and feel hungry and not have a proper lunch that you can put out in the cafeteria or on your school desk and feel like your peers. So it important, and I applaud all the volunteer groups who are providing nutritious lunches right across our Province. They are doing a good thing. Me, being a parent, I understand that. Everyone that is in this House today practically are parents and we all know how much peer pressure there is on young people today. Not having to deal with an issue of a school lunch reduces that pressure again.

Madam Speaker, government is responding. We are responding by contributing $75,000 a year. Is it enough? Well, it is always difficult when you are in government and say: Is it enough? - because there are so many demands on government. I believe it is a good contribution towards school lunches in the St. John's area, when you look at the fact that the Department of Human Resources and Employment makes their annual commitment of $500,000. I know that commitment is used all over this Province, so it is not designated exclusively for the St. John's lunch program.

In recent days they have made a commitment and they have committed to use $10,000 of that money. In fact, they have agreed to increase that $10,000 to $20,000, I have heard in recent days, that the Kids Eat Smart Foundation want to do to help out the St. John's lunch program.

I think the main thing that needs to happen here is addressing the immediate issue which we have done today. Beyond that, we are committed as a government, we want to meet with the St. John's school lunch program committee, we want to look out in the broader community and find out what corporate sponsors are out there. We all want to do our best to make sure that young people are going to school well fed and they are ready to learn.

Madam Speaker, what I am saying here is two things. We have looked after the immediate problem and I commit, as Minister of Post-Secondary Education to sitting down with this group, working with them, and seeing if we can find a common resolve here.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I really find it amazing, as I sat and listened to a minister of this government, the minister responsible for the youth of this Province - she made a couple of comments that I think are pretty telling. She acknowledged the dilemma the program finds itself in right now, but she said two things. She said: They need to learn more about it. We need to learn more about the demand. The demand! I tell the minister to read her own document, because this speaks to the demand in this Province. This motion speaks very specifically to a school lunch program here in St. John's, but the broader picture here is equally applicable. Whether you are on the Northern Peninsula, in Labrador, Eastern or Western or Southern Newfoundland and Labrador, anywhere in the Province, the issue is equally as important.

Let me just point out for the minister, when she talks about demand: Recently, her colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services released a report, From The Ground Up, boasting about this new initiative, this strategic social plan. Just let me read to the House, Madam Speaker, what this report acknowledges.

The heading is: Children Living In Poverty Is Still A Concern. Although the number of children under the age of eighteen, living in the Province, has declined by some 30 per cent since 1991, the number of children living in poverty has not, Madam Speaker, declined at the same rate.

If the minister wants to know about demand, I suggest that she read her own government's policies, own government's documents, because very clearly the statistics tell her that there is a demand, there is a need, that we do have children living in poverty. We have many of our children living in low income families. Many of those children are at risk. So, I don't think we need to do much more analysis of whether we have a demand to support child poverty in this Province. How much more do we need to study it? How much more statistics do we need?

Madam Speaker, this government is starting to suffer from paralysis of analysis. What we need is action, we need some commitment, not just an immediate response and dump some money at it today because my colleague from St. John's West raises it in a motion and reacting to our request. What we need is a proactive approach and an appropriate response.

The other point that the minister raises, before government puts any more money into this program they want to know what the corporate community is going to do. I say to the minister, the corporate community is not elected to govern this Province. The corporate community has, yes, a social conscience. Yes, we rely on the corporate community to support community initiatives, but the corporate community should not be replacing programs for which government has a responsibility.

Very clearly, when we talk about child poverty in this Province, we should be talking about government strategy, government's action plan, not whether or not the corporate community is going to increase the donations that they give to the programs, such as the lunch program here and others throughout this Province.

I think, Madam Speaker, when we look at a government that boasts in its recent Budget document that the key priorities in this year are going to be to develop strategies for wellness, one of the key cornerstones of this government's Strategic Health Plan is a focus on wellness. In fact, when I pick up their document and read it, their number one goal is to improve health outcomes and reduce negative impacts of select disease.

Madam Speaker, we have one the highest instances of Type 2 Diabetes in this country. One of the major influencing factors is diet. Here we are talking about a government who has created an environment where it has little plans to deal with an environment that has a significant impact on child poverty.

Child poverty is broader than the issue of dumping money into School Lunch Programs; it is much bigger than that. One of the things, goal one again. One of the strategies to deal with that number one goal that they have identified is a focus on child and youth initiatives.

I say, Madam Speaker, when I look at a government who stands here today and just prior to the debate on this particular resolution decides that they are going to inject some $50,000 into the St. John's School Lunch Program, $50,000 of not new money but $50,000 of money they were going to get next year, anyway, all this has done, it is just once again a knee-jerk reaction to an immediate problem that may not sound very popular and on the eve of an election want to ensure that there is no negative press. They do not want people in the media talking about what this government is not doing, so you squash what is now a media reaction and a public outcry to what is a shameful condemnation of what this government's policies have done to lead us to where we are today.

Where we are today, just to repeat, just in case the minister was not listening, just to repeat where we are today, we are at a point in time when, in fact, the number of children living in poverty is not declining when the percentage of our students or youth in the Province is declining by some 30 per cent since 1991. That is where we are today.

I, too, agree with the minister when she congratulates and commends the large number of volunteers that exist in this Province who are helping with programs like the School Lunch Program or the Kids Eat Smart Program. Some of the recent data that we have seen suggests that there are some 4,000 volunteers around this Province who are participating in programs like the School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, School Snack Program. These are people, dedicated, committed citizens of our community, who recognize that there is a gap. There are children falling through the gaps of social programs in this Province because this government has not had the vision, the foresight, years ago, to position the Province today where it is able to respond to and deal with some of the social problems that we experience. One of the ones that is most condemning of society is what we are doing to our children.

Child poverty has not improved. We have children going to school hungry. We have children who are not able to perform at their peak academically because they are hungry. We have children whose very health is being compromised because they do not have a nutritious meal in a day. I think that is a sad commentary of where we are as a society, but I think it is a commentary on the lack of vision that this government has shown.

In recent weeks, in recent months, government and many ministers have stood and talked about the Strategic Social Plan, and talked about it being a government with a great social conscience. I say, Madam Speaker, it is fine to do that now, but where were they three years ago, five years ago, six years ago, when they should have had the vision, and they should have been laying the foundation to bring us to where we should be today, not to where we are today?

The mere fact that we are having to introduce this resolution, the mere fact that we have 130 or 140 programs around this Province who are trying, at a volunteer base, at a community level, trying to fill the void that government has not filled; trying to response to society's responsibility to ensure we focus our attention, develop programs and services to deal with those people in our society who are the most vulnerable: children living in poverty, individuals on low incomes, our aging population, our seniors. These are the people in society who need the greatest support.

When we talk about social programs, when we talk about a Strategic Social Plan, when we talk about having a social conscience, these are the people we are really talking about. These are the people we should be focusing our attention on.

Many times I have stood in this House and talked about the derelict, this government's derelictions of their duties in not responding to the needs and demands and requirements of our aging population.

So on one end of the continuum as you age, this government has clearly demonstrated that it does not have a vision, has not appropriately responded, and we have that portion of our society left very vulnerable without the appropriate services and care.

On the other hand, children, on the other end of the age continuum, children living in poverty. children relying on community volunteers to scrape, to knock on doors. We heard the minister stand up a moment ago and commend students in schools in St. John's who are out collecting drink cans to recycle them, to put them into School Lunch Program, and I, too, commend children for that kind of civic pride, and their commitment to other students, but, Madam Speaker, that is a sad commentary. The children who are in our schools today should be focusing on their education, positioning themselves for the future, focusing on developing themselves rather than having to be concerned about collecting drink bottles and collecting drink cans, to recycle them so their school and their neighbour's school can have a School Lunch Program. Because they see themselves, children, some of their friends, and sometimes themselves in a community, in a school, and they are falling through the cracks. They are not able to study. Their health is being compromised because clearly we do not have an appropriate response strategy to deal with some of the social challenges facing this Province.

Madam Speaker, I could go on for hours talking about this serious crisis that we have in our Province today; however, there are a number of other colleagues here who want to speak to this very important resolution being put forward. As we do, I think you will clearly see that there are gaping holes in this government's so-called Strategic Social Plan, and it clearly lacks a vision, and we have not given adequate attention or focusing on our future, and that is preparing our children for their futures and our futures because they are, in fact, I suggest, our future. If we do not provide the programs that see those people's sound development, then we are compromising our future society.

Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to speak to this very important resolution and I commend my colleague for introducing it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise in support of the motion of the Member for St. John's West in relation to the School Lunch Association and the need for that program to have additional funds.

The School Lunch Association used to be called the St. John's School Lunch Association, so I want it to be clear that, even though it has some programs, I think twelve schools, some of which are not exactly in St. John's, this is really only one program within the Province and only deals with one area of the Province.

I, along with other parents in the jurisdiction of the School Lunch Association, one of the twelve schools, received a copy of this notice indicating that they could not continue this program. I want to commend the Member for St. John's West for bringing this forward, but I do want to say that the decision of the minister today, announcing, before Question Period, to advance funds from next year's budget is not going to really help. I say that in all sincerity. This is not a - it is like giving you an advance on your cheque, that you may have the money now but you are not going to have it then. What they have said is that they do not have sufficient funds to have a program in the month of June, and they will not be able to provide this service, and if they get the money now and spend it on this, they are going to be in the same problem next fall when they will be starting the year in a deficit position.

Now, Madam Speaker, the Province does support the School Lunch Association, this particular program, to the tune of $75, 000 a year, but that amounts to only 12 per cent of the funds that they have; 12 per cent of a budget of about $640,000 a year. Half of their money comes from parents and guardians who contribute to the cost of the meals. Forty per cent of the money comes from fundraising and donations.

The schools that take advantage of this program are very much privileged, in one sense, in this Province to have this program. Why do I say that, Madam Speaker? Because only 15 per cent of the school students in Newfoundland and Labrador have access to a school meal program. So my children are very lucky. The children who go to my children's school are very lucky, because they have the advantage of this program.

I have to commend, while I am at it, the St. John's School Lunch Association, now the School Lunch Association, for in fact establishing a stigma-free School Lunch Program way back about fifteen years ago. It was established at Bishop Field school. That school pioneered this program. They developed the program. They ensured that it was accessible to all students, and that no one would actually know who is paying and who is not. Clearly, less than half of the children who take part in this program have parents or guardians who are able to afford to pay the cost. That is the reality of school children today, even in the St. John's area, which we know from statistics is more prosperous, has a lower rate of unemployment, a higher per capita income, than many other areas in the Province. I say that not to say that things are better in the St. John's area, but to let everybody know that in many parts of the Province for children going to school it is significantly worse.

So while I support the motion, Madam Speaker, I have offered an amendment to this motion and to expand the motion beyond the confines of the School Lunch Association, although their need is urgent and immediate. I certainly recognize that they need the support because of their shortfall of $32,000, which they have announced to the parents a couple of weeks ago. I support this motion and I support the need. I would like to add an amendment, which I have provided to the Clerk at the Table and Your Honour, as well as the Opposition and the Government House Leader, to add an additional recital.

Now the recital, in addition to the one about the St. John's School Lunch Association that says:

WHEREAS it is know that more than 26 percent of children in this Province live in poverty and go to school hungry each day; and

WHEREAS it has been demonstrated in several reports, including the report of the all-party committee of this House, that hungry children do not have the same capacity to learn, which often results in them dropping out of school and, thereby, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

I would like to add an additional recital which says: AND WHEREAS the majority of children throughout the Province do not have access to a school meal program and will not receive this benefit in the foreseeable future under existing programs.

And to add an additional resolution at the end: THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on record as supporting a universal school meal program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador, supported by public funds, so that every child in this Province will have the benefit of this program.

That is my amendment, Madam Speaker, which I hope you will find in order. The Table has had an opportunity to look it, so I do not know if we need to recess to do that. I see a nod from Your Honour and from the Clerk, so I will proceed to speak to the amendment briefly because I know other speakers want to address this issue.

It is very important, Madam Speaker, to recognize that about 15,000 students in this Province have access to a school meal program. What that means is, up to 75,000 students do not. That is what it means, Madam Speaker, and I am sure in your own district, Madam Speaker, you know there are many communities and many schools where the need is very great for a program of this nature.

The Member for St. John's West has mentioned some reports, but you do not need reports although they are there. All you need to do is talk to teachers in the schools in your district, as I am sure we have all done, and you will find out that this is a serious problem. You will also find out that where there is a school meal program, the teachers will universally tell you that the performance in school of certain students has improved considerably because they have access to this program.

Now, Madam Speaker, I just looked at our Estimates for 2003. Do you know - I am sure you do, because you study these things every day, I imagine, you read the Estimates, Madam Speaker - but in the Estimates there is a figure for teaching services and there is number there of over $400 million that our Province spends or will spend this year on teacher salaries, $409 million to be exact - $ 409,753,100 on teacher services, teacher salaries and benefits, including substitute teachers. That is a considerable amount of money, Madam Speaker, a considerable amount of money, and we do that because we want to give our children the best possible education they can get. We want to ensure that they have at their disposal qualified teachers who know how to teach children and how to teach programs, and to provide the best curriculum that we can.

Well, Madam Speaker, if we are spending that level of money to support a teaching program in our schools, shouldn't we also be able to ensure that the children who are going to these classrooms, who are there to learn, can really do so? The Member for St. John's West has quoted educational psychologists and other studies which show children who are not properly nourished, who are hungry in school, cannot learn properly.

If the statistic, it is hard to get exact statistics about this but we hear 25 per cent to 30 per cent every time a statistic comes out, of children who go to school hungry, can we not find, must we not find, sufficient funds to ensure that we have children in school who are not hungry, who are able to learn, so that the teachers who are there to teach them actually have students who are in a position to be able to learn?

That is why the amendment is there, Madam Speaker. I think we have been fighting for years as a party to promote a universal school meal program. We have had petitions. We have had private members' resolutions. We have speeches in this House and members from the Official Opposition have supported this on a number of occasions. I think it is time now, Madam Speaker, that all members of the House have an opportunity to go on record as supporting a universal school meal program so that children throughout the Province, not just in places like St. John's or other places - and there are many other places that have these programs, because there are some 100 different programs in the Province but we have over 400 schools. There are a number of programs but it is not a universal program. There needs to be greater public support. There are many areas in the Province that cannot come up with the kind of - well, obviously the School Lunch Program in St. John's raises some $330,000 or $340,000 a year in donations. That is not possible in many areas of this Province. That is not possible where we do not have the community capacity, the corporate donors, the other people who are able to donate to these programs; it is not possible. There needs to be greater public support and I would like, Madam Speaker, to give everybody in this House an opportunity to support this resolution and to ensure that we have a universal school meal program for every school in the Province so that every child can benefit and every child can go to school without being hungry.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It gives me pleasure today to stand and speak to the motion before the floor, but before I do I would like to make a few remarks pertaining to some of the remarks that I have been listening to, and some of the flip-flops from across the floor that I have heard from the Opposition members in the past four or five weeks that we have been sitting here. It is not just in the past four or five weeks; it seems to me it is the last two or three years, that one day the Opposition stands in the House and say - I have difficulty, too, Madam Speaker, sitting here and listening to it day after day because I really do not know where they are coming from. They do so many flip-flops that it is difficult to follow them on a different day. One day they stand in the House - not one day, they stand every day and they request more money for roads, more money for infrastructure, more money for water and sewer, more money for this, more money for that. Then, the Member for Ferryland, who is over waving his arms at me now, the Opposition Finance critic, stands every day and tells us how we are spending like drunken sailors, we are out of control, we cannot keep the Budget under control, and criticizes us for running deficits and these things.

I really and truly do not know where they are coming from because, when the Member for St. John's Centre was in Corner Brook just a few short weeks ago, he and the Leader of the Opposition, and they were talking to a group out there, it was reported in the paper that they were criticizing government and they could handle the books better. Their objective when they got in was to run a balanced Budget, but they were going to do so by trimming the fat and the bureaucracy. At least that is what was reported in The Western Star. I am not quoting myself, Madam Speaker, I am quoting an article in The Western Star where they talked about how they were going to slash the Budget by laying off civil servants.

Their new candidate for Topsail District, Ms Marshall, with her Marshall plan, I heard her in an interview say the same thing, that there is still fat in the bureaucracy in certain government organizations where you can trim. Then, I had to sit here and listen to them criticize us about the way we spend.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to say that we do the best we can with the finances that we have. We realize that there is a lot of competing interest for the few dollars that we have. We do the best to handle the Budget, but we are socially conscious, unlike the members opposite, because we are Liberals, and to be Liberal means to be socially conscious, not to be conservative because every Conservative government in the world - and I have said it time and time again - are more interested in balancing budgets and cutting taxes to the rich than they are about social programs for the poor. That is unlike us, Madam Speaker, because we believe in helping out those who are in most need in this Province.

With regard to the motion that we are talking about today, I think there is some confusion amongst the members opposite in trying to portray the image that we do not take trying to feed the kids in this Province who are going to school hungry, that we are not trying to do this. You would be left with the impression that we have no intention of doing this, but that is so far from the truth here, Madam Speaker, that it hardly deserves mention.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, there is an umbrella group for all of these volunteer organizations in the Province who feed our kids on a voluntary basis each day around the Province, and it is called the Kids Eat Smart Foundation. Yesterday, at lunchtime, I had the opportunity to address not only the Foundation but a number of people, including some of the members opposite, right out here in the lobby of Confederation Building. They had this great poster contest going around the Province, the Foundation did, and it was supported by Petro Canada, Brookfield Ice Cream and a whole host of other supporters, like NAPE, who contribute not only to the campaign but they also contribute to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

The Foundation, as I said, is an umbrella group and it was established back in 1994. The goal behind that, at the time, was to try and provide a healthy nutritious meal to those kids in the Province who need a healthy nutritious meal. Obviously, Madam Speaker, if you have a healthy body it leads to a healthy mind. So, I have to commend the people at the Kids Eat Smart Foundation for the honourable and great job that they are doing to provide nutritious meals to the people of our Province. But, as I said, it is an umbrella group. I think when it was established first and they got out there and starting working - in 1998, for example, the Foundation helped to establish sixty-one programs around this Province and fed 6,200 children each day in our schools here in the Province. That was in 1998. By 2000-2003 they have 137 programs active in our Province. In four years they went from sixty-one programs feeding 6,200 children to 137 active programs today serving roughly 15,000 students in our Province. That is commendable, the great work that this Foundation does.

The Kids Eat Smart Foundation are, as I said, the umbrella group for a lot of organizations in the Province, because as I just said, there are 137 of these. The Kids Eat Smart Foundation help these organizations - volunteer organizations, I might say - get up and get running. They also give them some seed capital. They give them some money to get running. In fact, the School Lunch Program that we are talking about here today, they receive $10,000 a year from the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

Along with that, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that my colleague, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education provided to the School Lunch Program last year and again this year, I think it was $75,000. My colleague, who is not here today because of a death in his family, which I am saddened to hear, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, they give $500,000 each year to the Kids Eat Smart program, and that is distributed to organizations like the School Lunch Foundation.

It is my understanding as well, Madam Speaker, that the Kids Eat Smart Foundation have been holding discussions with the School Lunch Program. They are doing their best to help them over a hump, that they are finding it difficult this year for some reason to continue up until the end of the school year with the funding that they have received. I was very pleased today to hear my colleague, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, announce that she will advance $50,000, I think it is, of next year's funding toward the School Lunch Program here in St. John's. That is very admirable of the minister.

I am not saying that all the money is here that is necessary. Obviously, like my colleague, the great socialist from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we would like to see every child in the Province, not just fed when schools are open, but fed when schools are closed on holidays and summer holidays and Christmas holidays. It is an admirable thing to do.

We were standing in the lobby yesterday and a number of members opposite - in fact, the member who has brought the motion before the floor this afternoon was standing there when Susan Greene, who happens to be the chair of the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, thanked government yesterday. She said she understood these are tough financial times for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the government, and it is difficult to find money for all the needs and wishes and wants of the people of this Province, but she did thank government for the $500,000 they received this year and commended us for doing so.

Madam Speaker, all I am saying is that we are doing what we can for all those programs. Obviously, we would like to do more, but I think if you look at it, this year we have given $585,000 to these various programs. We have done a great deal, and it was a Liberal government, not a Tory government, that was in for seventeen years between 1972 and 1989. They were there for seventeen years. They never mentioned a School Lunch Program, but it seems the minute they get in Opposition they get a social conscience. They want to feed the poor, or they want to help the needy, but they did not have that in mind when they occupied the seat of power for seventeen years during those periods that I just talked about. It seems that when they get in Opposition they can yell and scream and ball, and they will ask you for more money one day and the next day they will stand in the House and criticize you for spending it.

All I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that I would like to commend my colleagues on this side of the floor for what we are doing to try and help feed school children around this Province. With that, I will sit down and let somebody else speak.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Madam Speaker, the resolution that was put forward by my colleague from St. John's West is very clear.

AND WHEREAS the School Lunch Association, unless it receives $30,000 funding immediately, will have to shut down at the end of May, thus depriving these children from receiving nutritious lunches during the month of June.

What we are asking for, Madam Speaker, is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should consider providing the necessary funding to allow the School Lunch Association to carry on for the month of June, the end of the school year.

Now, it is surprising that this motion was read into the record yesterday and today we see the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education say that there are three installments of $25,000 each that government give to the School Lunch Program. What they are going to do to solve the problem is take $50,000 from next year's school program and put it into this year's school program. That is not what this resolution is asking for.

I am going to support this resolution, because what we are asking for in this resolution is to provide the School Lunch Program with $30,000; not to borrow from next year, which will put next year's operating program at a $50,000 disadvantage right off the bat. They will have $25,000 to operate, as opposed to $75,000. Or, if they only need the $30,000, in fact, they will have $45,000 to operate with next year, which means they are $25,000 in the hole before they even get started, let alone if they run short.

What we are asking for, Madam Speaker, is that government look at providing $30,000 to continue the School Lunch Program to the end of this school year. Thirty thousand dollars is not, when you look at everything that is happening in the Province - to me it is a lot of money. To the children who go to school hungry every day, it is a lot of money, but to this government $30,000 is not a lot of money.

The Premier, if he should decide tomorrow to put off another ad campaign promoting himself or promoting an issue or promoting something else - the last ad campaign was $25,000 a week. What we are asking for is $30,000 to prevent children from going to school hungry.

The statistics show, Madam Speaker, that when children have food to eat, they learn easier. Their academic marks improve. Their social environment at school improves, because what is happening with the School Lunch Program is, instead of just the kids who have money lining up at the cafeteria to eat, and the kids who do not going outside the back of the school because they cannot go home, there is no food at home, what is happening is that everybody lines up in the same lineup and there is no distinguishing between the kid who has money and the kid who does not. Not only does it ensure that the kids have a good lunch every day, but when they are not hungry they are also learning better. When they are not hungry and there is no distinguishing between the kids who have money and the kids who do not, the social climate at the school improves as well.

When you look at all of those things, $30,000 is not a big investment by government. This Province has the highest rate of child poverty in the country. One in four children live in low income households. What we are seeing, as an example under the Kids Eat Smart program, their statistics show 65 per cent better attendance because kids are eating breakfast. Now, it is two different programs - one is breakfast and one is lunch - but the Kids Eat Smart program is showing, because those kids are having breakfast, that there is a 65 per cent better attendance, a 73 per cent improved attention span, a 61 per cent improved academic performance, which means a better education, a better social climate, and healthier children.

When you look at all of those things, $30,000 is one week less on the next ad campaign that the Premier puts out. Thirty thousand dollars is one less trip abroad, but $30,000 means that the kids can go to school knowing that they are going to have a healthy lunch, knowing that they are going to have a better attention span, knowing they are going to be able to concentrate better on their academics, and their academic performance will increase.

Madam Speaker, I support this motion, and I am delighted to see that government are going to take $50,000 and put it towards the kids School Lunch Program, but I am not delighted to see that it is not new money. I am not delighted to see that they are borrowing it from next year's program. That does not solve anything. This resolution will solve the problem, and that is why I am supporting this resolution.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Madam Speaker, I stand today to speak to the motion that is before us here in the House of Assembly. I think anytime we talk about school children and hunger, I don't guess there is anyone in the House who cannot relate to the importance of doing whatever we can to deal with that need.

I am so pleased to be part of this government, and my colleague today, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, who stood in the House and committed to advance $50,000 so that the School Lunch Program can continue until the end of June, which I understand, Madam Speaker, is exactly what has been asked of us in the motion that is before us today.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should consider providing the necessary funding to allow the School Lunch Association to carry on for the month of June - the end of the school year."

That is precisely what my colleague has done in advancing $50,000. I understand that the number that has been talked about by the School Lunch Association is in the vicinity of $30,000, so this will indeed allow them to continue the program to the end of the school year.

We know that there is an issue for the School Lunch Program, Madam Speaker, and as my colleague has indicated her officials will work very closely with those of the School Lunch Association to try and identify other sources of funding so that there will not be a hardship on the School Lunch Association as a result of advancing $50,000 at this point in time.

The Kids Eat Smart Foundation and the School Lunch Association are two very worthwhile organizations that are supported by this government. In fact, if you were to look at the record of this government it is, in fact, the Liberal government that instituted those programs that started working with the Kids Eat Smart Foundation and the School Lunch Association, again, because we believed in what was being asked of us, but again because we also recognize the need to do everything we can to ensure that children do not go hungry.

We are doing the best that we can with the resources available to us, Mr. Speaker, and some would say that given the resources available to us we are probably doing more than we really can afford to do. Having said that, as a government we have undertaken to do whatever we can to respond to the need in our Province.

In fact, when I was Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure, I guess, and the honour of putting $1 million into the Kids Eat Smart Foundation. At one point in time, in 1998, the Department of Human Resources and Employment committed to provide $1 million to the organization and they entered into a five-year agreement that ends on July 31, 2003. That $1 million was budgeted by the Foundation over that five-year period. The additional $1 million that the Department of Education put in, in March of 2001, did not extend the agreement but it was an additional $1 million to ensure that even more children could receive the nutrition they needed to ensure that they could start the day off properly with a nutritious meal, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing that is very good about this program, about all of these meal programs, is the anonymity of them, because not only are the children who cannot afford to have a healthy breakfast or a healthy lunch able to avail of these programs, but there are also those who avail of the programs who very well can afford to buy themselves, or their parents can afford to buy them, meals. You know, through these programs, these children all come together and no one questions whether or not they can or cannot afford it. That is the beauty of these programs, because no matter who these children are, whether they have the ability or their parents have the ability to provide meals or whether they do not, they come together and it becomes very much a social setting for a lot of them early in the morning.

I know when I was Minister of Education I visited a number of schools where the breakfast program was being served, and the lunch program was being served, and it was heartwarming to see that children were able to avail of these meals, but also to know that it was being done on a basis that it did not matter what your background was or what your need was or wasn't that you were able to take advantage of the program.

My colleague, the Minister of Education, referenced the fact that by increasing the amount of money that we put into the program, we went from sixty-one programs and serving 6,200 children under the Kids Eat Smart Foundation to 137 active programs serving more than 14,000 students. But he did not go onto say, Mr. Speaker, that a further thirteen schools are now in the process of establishing programs so that we will see that 14,000 number grow substantially.

We are very, very pleased with the program. Would we like to do more? Of course. Who wouldn't? You know, you have to bear in mind that with the constant requests for more money, whether it is health care, whether it is more teachers in the system thereby more money for teachers salaries, whether we are talking infrastructure, there are any number of requests for additional funding for any number of initiatives. So, as a government, we have the difficulty, I guess, of looking at all of these requests and working with the resources available to us to respond in a manner that is responsible and one in which we will be accountable. We do the best with what we have. Would we like to do more? Of course. As I said, if we could we would.

I think at the outset, too, we really should recognize that these programs are as successful as they have been to date not only because of the funding that this government has put into them, but as well because of the volunteers who make sure that these programs take place. In addition to recognizing the many, many volunteers - and as I said when I was Minister of Education, I had the pleasure of having an opportunity to thank them when I visited the various programs that were taking place in some of our schools throughout the Province - I also want to recognize Susan Green, who is Executive Director of this Kids Eat Smart Foundation, a tremendous individual who gives tirelessly of her time and who believes so much in this program and who has acknowledged publicly the funding that this government has put into this program, and at the same time acknowledging that we are doing it at a time when resources are scarce. Susan Green has been very supportive. For anyone to acknowledge what we have done as a government and at the same time recognize that more can be done, I think we should all appreciate her efforts and certainly the part that she plays in ensuring that as many of our children as possible are able to get a nutritious meal, whether it is breakfast or whether it is lunch.

As my colleague, the Minister of Education, mentioned, the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, of course, in addition to providing the breakfast program throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in as many schools as we can with the resources that they have available to them, they also ensure that the School Lunch Association receives some of that funding, in addition to the money that goes into the School Lunch Foundation from Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, the $10,000 that would go in from the money that is allocated to he Kids Eat Smart Foundation and, as well, an additional $10,000 went into the School Lunch Association as an emergency measure by the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

There is a recognition by all of us of the need to do everything we can to respond to the need that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that no child goes hungry. Again, we have to work with the resources that we have, bearing in mind, as well, that it is just not the responsibility of government. All of us have a responsibility for the children in our Province, whether it is to do with literacy issues or whether it is to do with hunger issues. We all need to play our part, as individuals, as government, as corporations and as volunteers. We really all need to recognize that if one child goes hungry, then that is one child too many.

Working with the government, I would encourage the corporate sector to continue to work with us, as they have done certainly with the School Lunch Association. Again, I have been at events where corporations have been recognized for their financial contributions to the School Lunch Association. So I congratulate the corporate sector. I congratulate the volunteers. I congratulate all the individuals who make contributions because we do, at the end of the day, all have a responsibility for the children in our Province. It is not just government's responsibility.

I am pleased that my colleague, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, was in a position to be able to advance the $50,000 to ensure that the School Lunch Association can continue to the end of the school year, which is very, very important. The fact that she has committed, with her officials, to work with the School Lunch Association to identify other sources of funding so that they will not be short in the coming year. I think we need to applaud that measure and recognize that everything we can do is being done to respond to the need which has been expressed and the motion that has been put forward today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have listened to my colleagues speak on both sides of the House and it seems like we have blindfolded the devil in the dark here today or robbed Peter to pay Paul. Indeed, the government and the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education has agreed to provide the necessary funding to allow the School Lunch Program to extend for the month of June, but in doing so, this School Lunch Program has been seriously jeopardized for next year. All that will be coming from the government, from the commitment next year, is $25,000. Basically, the School Lunch Program is going into September $50,000 in the hole from the $50,000 that has been provided today. So, yes, government has agreed with the spirit of the resolution, but what have they done? They have extended a loan to the School Lunch Association - that the School Lunch Association will have to pay back going into September - knowing that instead of receiving $75,000 from the government, they will be receiving $25,000.

The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education referred to a demand for the program. They would look and see what kind of a demand there was for the program. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that when 1,600 children take advantage of a hot lunch everyday, there is a demand for the program. She also spoke about how funds are raised. I am happy to say that I will be attending Hazelwood tonight to fill my bowl for a hungry child, but she also referred to recycling. Recycling is a good thing. It is an excellent thing, and I recommend it, but when the children of our Province have to go out and recycle so that other children can put food in their stomachs, we have reached a new low. We are nickelling-and-diming our children to death to keep other children feed.

The minister herself also said there is nothing worst than being hungry and being embarrassed because you have no lunch. I refer once again to a statement that I have repeated so often in this House because it was so profound. The statement by a little girl in a school that I visited: Poverty is pretending that you forgot your lunch. So there is that child excusing the fact that she does not have her lunch and excusing the fact that she is poor, sitting there hungry and pretending she forgot her lunch.

Mr. Speaker, I also refer to the Minister of Education saying they are socially conscious. How can he justify that statement while the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education speaks of children recycling? How can he justify that statement when we compare the $30,000 that we are looking for, for those children, to other expenditures that have been made? Could we compare the $30,000 perhaps to spousal travel? They are doing the best they can with the funds they have, and we are looking for $30,000 to keep a School Lunch Association going to keep 1,600 children fed a hot meal in the month of June? They are doing the best they can and spousal travel costs almost as much, or a senior civil servant leaving and given a redundancy retirement package, the portion of that that is used for redundancy when the position was filled a couple of days later? This $30,000 amounts to 10 per cent of the amount that he received. When this $30,000 is compared to the ads that this government used to promote themselves. This $30,000 represents 12 per cent of what this government use to promote themselves. They should be ashamed. What they have done today, yes, they have politically postured. They have provided the money so that the School Lunch Association can continue in June, and nobody can deny that, but they have apologized for the way they have handled it by getting up, minister after minister after minister, saying: We are doing the best we can with the money.

The minister knows that advancing this $50,000 to the School Lunch Association for the month of June is seriously jeopardizing them. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology spoke of how good the program is. Yet, she can stand there today and justify the political posturing that is taking place by the advancement of $50,000. Basically, it is a loan, and what they are saying to the School Lunch Association is: We were going to give you $75,000 next year. We will not do that. We will give you $50,000 now and you will get $25,000 next year. So, basically, the School Lunch Program has been hung out to dry.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution that was put forward, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

On motion, resolution carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of hon. members, I give notice of a motion. The motion that I would give notice of is that the House, on tomorrow, not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, this House does now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.