November 22, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 44


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome to the House some students from Prince of Wales Collegiate in the St. John's North District, Level I and II students - I think there are about forty of them - with their teachers, Ms Angela Pynn and Mr. Bob Johnson. Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Under the Members' Statements this afternoon, we have statements by the following members: the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the hon. the Member for Gander, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, Thursday, November 18, marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the tidal wave disaster of 1929. Throughout the week events were held to commemorate the occasion and remember those who lost their lives in this disaster.

Mr. Speaker, your own mother, who resided in the community of L'Anse au Loup near the present day community of Epworth, was fourteen years of age at that time and can still clearly recall the events of that memorable day.

In the community of Point au Gaul, in the District of Grand Bank, eight people perished. On Sunday, November 14, I shared in a ceremony at St. Andrew's Church in Port au Bras. In that community seven lives were lost, four of them being a mother and three of her daughters. In total, twenty-nine people perished in the disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all members of this House join me as we, too, remember those who were so affected the day that the sea rose up and devastated so many communities on the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would say to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, all members of the House are delighted that you are here with us today and in good health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Badger resident Michelle Critch, for making national history in the sport of Martial Arts. Ms Critch received a Gold Medal in (Foo Koo Go) Fuku-go at the World Karate Championships in Switzerland on October 8, 2004, which makes her the very first Canadian to win such an award.

Ms Critch's accomplishment is truly exceptional, as she has reached this goal with self-discipline and determination and has become a world champion. Ms Critch was up against competitors from over thirty-two countries, and her performance spoke for itself as she defeated a fierce competitor from the Ukraine in the final round to win the championship.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Critch's achievement is astounding. I know that there is a groundswell of pride for Michelle in her hometown of Badger, and I also know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians share that same pride as well. She is a wonderful ambassador for our Province and our country, and I am honoured to recognize her today in the House of Assembly for her accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ms Michelle Critch on her World Championship and extend best wishes to her as she continues her success in all levels of future competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before this House to bring to your attention the accomplishments of the 103 Search and Rescue Unit from the District of Gander.

On September 25, 2004, the eleven-person team from 103 Search and Rescue Gander won the Diamond Trophy for best overall performance at the National Search and Rescue exercises competition that was held this year in Comox, B.C.

In addition to winning this competition, the 103 Team also won the Sullivan Trophy for Best Performance in Medical Exercises, and they made the Parachute Association Honour Roll for the best overall rescue performance.

This win marks an unprecedented second consecutive time that Search and Rescue Gander has won this competition, which involves Search and Rescue Squadrons from all across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating 103 Search and Rescue Gander for their outstanding performance in the SAREX Competition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Mr. Roy Giles, a native of Ramea in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, who has recently been honoured by the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mr. Giles was recently awarded the Humanitarian Medal by the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary in October. The medal applauds people who have played a part in a major humanitarian act or operation. To receive the medal, a person must give a level of service above and beyond normal duties, and show that they have positively affected the situational outcome and has major significance in these situations.

An active member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary for the past twenty years, Mr. Giles spent numerous hours responding to those who find themselves in peril at sea. He has participated in fifty-two search and rescue incidents over the past twenty-one years, volunteering over 284 hours in operations, assisting approximately 244 people. The Canadian Coast Guard recently awarded Mr. Giles his medal at a ceremony in Lewisporte on October 2.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Roy Giles for receiving this Coast Guard medal of distinction. I also ask all members of the hon. House to join me in extending a big thank you to all members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary Service throughout Newfoundland and Labrador for continuing to keep mariners safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, November 22, is the fifth annual National Housing Day across Canada. It began in 1998 when the Big City Mayors' Caucus of the Federation of Municipalities endorsed a declaration that homelessness was a national disaster.

Today, five years later, there is a housing crisis across the country that affects more than just the visible homeless on city streets. There is a serious shortage of affordable housing in every province. In Newfoundland and Labrador, rents and house prices have skyrocketed, and more low-cost housing is needed in urban and rural communities.

We have a growing number of "hidden homeless" - people staying with friends or relatives because they cannot find housing. Low income families are cutting into food budgets to pay rent and heat. In St. John's, the vacancy rate dropped from 8.8 per cent to 2 per cent in the last decade, and rents increased by 4.3 per cent in 2003. Seniors, people with disabilities and others need accessible and supportive housing across the Province.

Housing is a determinant of health. The shortage of decent, affordable housing is pushing more individuals and families into poverty.

I congratulate the community organizations that have recently built new shelters and supportive housing in St. John's - Stella Burry Community Services, Choices for Youth, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the St. John's Native Friendship Association. I also commend the efforts of the Provincial Housing Policy Working Group, a community-government initiative working to focus on housing needs.

These organizations are part of a fundraising effort called "Raising the Roof", which is launching its annual campaign selling toques to support housing projects. I encourage all hon. members to support this effort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour a young woman from my district who has recently won a provincial award for her business.

Thirteen year old Christy Groves of Forteau was the recipient of the High Achievement in Marketing Award presented through the Youth Ventures program. Christy was presented with a $1,000 advertising voucher from OZ FM and NTV, and $200 in cash, a plaque and certificate.

Christy's successful business involves making miniature paintings using water colors. The paintings are of local flowers and berries found in Southern Labrador. The berries consist of blueberries, partridgeberries and bakeapples. She also paints silverweed, the wild iris, and, of course, the beautiful Labrador rose. She sets each in handmade pine frames which have been hand-sanded, stained and varnished.

Ms Groves' work is presently being celebrated and displayed throughout Southern Labrador, and we are sure that with her tremendous efforts in the field of marketing, her work will be displayed province wide in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of the House to join me in congratulating this young girl in receiving the Marketing Award through Youth Ventures, and I wish her great success in her business.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleagues are aware, today, November 22, is designated as National Housing Day. In support of this event, I rise today to announce the launch of Raising the Roof 2004. We join community and corporate leaders in this fundraising effort which helps to serve those most at risk for homelessness in our Province and country.

Raising the Roof is Canada's only national homelessness charity, and last year Newfoundland and Labrador raised $19,000 to support this campaign. Proceeds from this year's toque sales will go to four shelter and supportive housing providers in St. John's: Choices for Youth, Stella Burry Community Services, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the St. John's Native Friendship Centre Association. These organizations have recently built or are building new shelters and supportive housing in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes and supports the need for safe, affordable and sustainable housing and continues to actively address this issue. An average of $66 million is allocated to support social rental housing programs in Newfoundland and Labrador each year. The Province's Provincial Home Repair Program, offered through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, provides approximately $9 million to over 2,000 households province-wide annually. This program is aimed at keeping lower income people in their own homes for as long as possible and preventing them from becoming homeless.

In St. John's alone, some $360,000 has been provided in Shelter Enhancement funding through partnerships on projects like the Stella Burry Corporation's Carew Lodge and Emmanuel House. Other properties which have been provided funding include the St. John's Native Friendship Centre and the Naomi Centre. Projects funded outside of St. John's include the Bay St. George Status of Women's Council and the Nain Group Home.

Also, government representatives from Health and Community Services, HRLE and NLHC work with community partners on the Homelessness Advisory Committee. This is a federal, provincial, municipal and community committee which selects and funds housing projects for people in the community who are at risk for homelessness.

As well, through NLHC's Affordable Housing Program, approximately $1.7 million will be committed by the corporation for affordable housing units in this year's budget. The funding will subsidize the construction of fifty-four new affordable housing units, some of which will be completed this fiscal year with the remainder being completed in early spring.

Mr. Speaker, this Province is committed to improving the well-being of those most at risk for homelessness and we are working in partnership with all levels of government and community groups to find the best possible solutions and options to address this issue.

I am looking forward to meeting with my federal, provincial and territorial colleagues at meetings in Ottawa later this month. We hope to develop an approach for a long-term national housing strategy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and also to join with the minister and others in the community in supporting National Housing Day. I would also like to express our support for the Raising the Roof 2004 Campaign.

I would encourage all members of the hon. House and the general public to buy a toque in support of those worthwhile organizations. However, Mr. Speaker, as we support this day, we should also keep in mind the importance of dealing every day with the housing problems which exist in this Province. We should be aware of the hardships caused when this government decreased the damage deposit allowed for income support clients. We should be aware of the increasing rental prices, in particular in the St. John's area, which indicate that we are heading for a potential housing crisis in this Province. It is fine and well, Mr. Speaker, to celebrate this day, but I advise the minister she should think of the housing needs of the people every day and change the policies of her department to reflect that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we too support the charitable efforts of these community groups, we have to recognize that homelessness should not, in fact, be a charity at all, but it is a government responsibility to guarantee shelter to all of its citizens.

What the minister didn't say, Mr. Speaker, is that the support that government provides for housing is grossly inadequate in this Province and on a national level. We haven't had a national housing program since 1994. Although this Province signed an agreement with the federal government on affordable housing, the minister didn't mention what programs might be coming forward from her department and her government, under the $30 million that has been allocated for this work. We need that money spent quickly, Mr. Speaker, not waiting around for two or three years until this government figures out what it is going to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In recognition of National Child Day held Saturday past, November 20, 2004, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the future and promise of our Province's children and youth. National Child Day commemorates the 1989 signing of the UN Convention on the Rights of Child Treaty which spells out the basic human rights that children under the age of eighteen everywhere, without discrimination, should enjoy.

This year's international theme is A World Fit for Children. As parents, community members, and as a Province, we have a responsibility to build a nurturing and secure environment so that our children have an equal opportunity to learn, grow and succeed. Creating an environment that instills values, provides educational opportunities, and protects our children is an important priority for this government and our country.

Recently children's issues have been at the national forefront, from early learning and child care to literacy and the societal challenges we collectively face with our increasing rates of childhood obesity and health and social issues of Aboriginal children. It reinforces our belief that we must equip our children and youth with the tools they need to break down barriers, overcome challenges and allow them to reach their full potential.

Parents are a child's first teachers and they can be the most effective instructors. One of the most important activities parents can do with their children is to simply read with them. We know that early learning and literacy has a significant impact on the future wellness and learning for children.

I am pleased to report to this House that our recent Early Childhood Development annual report noted that over 85 per cent of children, five and under, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are read to daily by an adult. That number is substantially higher than the national average of 66 per cent in the same age group, and for that we should all be proud.

To expand on the important work that parents do, our government has taken significant steps to give our children greater opportunities for development and learning. Community partnerships with organizations like the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, the implementation of a Mother Baby Nutritional Supplement, additional investments in child protection and the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, along with education initiatives, such as Healthy Children-Healthy Schools, are all actions that our government has taken this year.

Mr. Speaker, on this special day we see hope and we celebrate the possibilities for our children now and in the future. Today I encourage all members of this House to wear a symbolic blue ribbon and join me as we reaffirm our determination and our sincere commitment to do more for our youth so that no child is left behind.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. minister for a copy of his statement today. All of our caucus is pleased to stand and support and recognize National Child Day, but I say to the minister, it is our actions everyday on the children's agenda that will testify to our real commitment to children in Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, to give special consideration on this occasion to the needs of autism children in our Province, to pay heed to the statements that are being made by the Child Advocate in Newfoundland and Labrador and the growing need of Aboriginal children in Labrador and the statements the Child Advocate has made.

I, also, Mr. Speaker, want to point out that we were the government that started and enhanced a number of the initiatives the minister has outlined today with regard to family resource centres and the Mother Baby Nutritional Supplement, and we were partners, as well, for a number of years with the Kids Eat Smart Foundation. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to continue to build upon our children's agenda and that includes looking at the recreational needs and the infrastructure and the programs that children need all across our Province. Today we are celebrating the creative arts festival and drama festival in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where children in Labrador and in that region have lobbied for an auditorium for their school to be able to carry out the arts and drama programs they started almost thirty years ago. So, I say to the minister today, look at all of those needs and carry forward with an agenda that we can be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - proud of collectively for children in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is like another day and another resolve: the more things change the more they remain the same.

In 1989, in the House of Commons, there was a unanimous resolution agreed to that was presented by Ed Broadbent to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the year 2000 child poverty was greater than it was when the resolution was introduced.

What we need to do in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we can take things into our own hands that will greatly enhance the elimination of child poverty and to make life better for our children. Some of things that this government could do is have a universal school lunch program. Another thing they could do is eliminate the school fees so that parents are not saddled with the financial burden of sending their children to school.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to wrap up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: A higher minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, that would put more money in the hands of parents to be able to take care of their children's needs. So, all of these things, Mr. Speaker, are things that this government could be doing and should be doing and it is time that they take affirmative action on this, not put out a release saying what they resolve to do but actually put some concrete programs in front of people of this Province to demonstrate what they are doing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In asking my question of the Premier I would like first to advise Your Honour and the House that I will be introducing a motion, at the appropriate point after Question Period, to ask that we adjourn the Orders of the Day to hold an urgent and emergent debate on the Atlantic Accord in advance of tomorrow's critical meeting.

We want, I think, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity here - and this is our first opportunity to do it - to send a united message to all of those in Ottawa that all members of this House support the Province's position on receiving 100 per cent of our offshore revenues without equalization clawback.

Mr. Speaker, we have even put together - and I think some people have seen it - a pamphlet that puts our position with respect to the Accord, in an attempt to put it in everyday street language for people that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now if he could get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we, as the Opposition, are very hopeful and expect that an Accord deal will be finalized tomorrow. My first question for the Premier is: In advance of this important meeting tomorrow, is he prepared to support an opportunity for this Legislature to have an urgent and emergent debate with respect to this issue today so that there is no misunderstanding from anybody else, anywhere in the country, about the united position of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the question from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

As he can appreciate, and as all hon. members opposite and all of us can appreciate, this is a very delicate and difficult time in these negotiations. Although I appreciate the offer to have a debate, there certainly is opportunity this afternoon in the Address and Reply for hon. members to sort of state their positions and attempt to clarify, in their own way, the positions and the issues that are before us with the Atlantic Accord.

But, tomorrow is a critical day, and as I said before, things are delicate. We have to be very, very careful. We are all in this together. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are all in this together, and this hon. House, and the last thing we need is debate because there really should be no debate, just as there should be no negotiation. There is really nothing to talk about. We know what we asked for, we know what was agreed to, we know what we want as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Therefore, I would certainly ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to - under the circumstances - reconsider that request because I just do not think it would appropriate and I do not think it would be helpful under the circumstances.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will be making the request at the appropriate point and explain my reasons for doing so as we move through the agenda today.

Mr. Speaker, during the June 5 conversation between the Premier and the Prime Minister, I would ask the Premier this question: Did he receive any commitments as to whether the new payments under the Accord will be retroactive to a particular date? The people of the Province have been going without these extra revenues since first oil in late 1997, despite the best efforts of previous governments to have the changes effective. Has the Premier secured a retroactive date for these payments to commence, either at first oil back in late 1997, at the beginning of the fiscal year, April 1, 2004, or at least no later than the commitment date of June 5 when the conversation was held?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. gentleman opposite can appreciate, and I can repeat it again, this is a very delicate time, we have to be very careful. I understand you have a job to do as Leader of the Opposition and you have to ask questions.

The issue of retroactivity has been discussed throughout, both before and since the agreement was reached on June 5. I don't want to do anything here today that is going to give away our negotiating position in any manner whatsoever. When I say negotiating -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is a good point, a good point, a fair point.

What we are trying to do is wrap a package for the federal government, so that they can live with their commitment. What we are going to try and do is find a way for them to deliver exactly what we need, but we wouldn't want to do anything today to jeopardize that.

In answer to your question, there have been discussions on that before, there have been discussions since, and that is a matter that will ultimately be dealt with at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody is glad to hear that issue is part of the discussions, the talks, the negotiations that are proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier decided not to get the Prime Minister's Atlantic Accord commitment in writing during the federal election, and he has explained why several times to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. A week and a half ago, Mr. Speaker, it was reported on VOCM that the Premier now has a written commitment as a result of the meeting with Premier Hamm and Prime Minister Martin in Ottawa on November 10. In the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability, which the Government House Leader talked about this morning as being the hallmark of this session, I would ask the Premier if he would table the written commitment that he told VOCM he received on November 10 in his meeting with Premier Hamm and the Prime Minister in Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know where that is coming from but it is inaccurate. Why it is inaccurate, I have no idea. It is not to sort of lay blame on anybody for recording it incorrectly, because it is the first I have heard of it. There was no written agreement in that particular meeting, just to make the record very clear. There were actually note takers in that meeting. There was an note taker on behalf of the Premiers, there was note taker there on behalf of the Prime Minister, so notes were actually taken, but there was no written agreement reached.

Also, with respect to a criticism, for want of a better word, that there was never an agreement in writing, you know we put our proposal in writing to the Prime Minister. He indicated here in Newfoundland and Labrador on the morning of June 5 that he accepted our proposal which was the proposal that was put in writing. He publicly acknowledged that, in the media afterwards, to the witness of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, including Walter Noel and including, of course, all the Newfoundland and Labrador MPs.

Following that, on June 10, I wrote him and clarified exactly what out position was, what the agreement was that was reached. I wrote him again on August 5, I wrote him again on August 24, and clearly set out what the unconditional, unequivocal agreement was. He did not reply. He did not renege. He did not dispute. He did not disagree at any point in time with that particular commitment.

With regard to obtaining a commitment from the Prime Minister in writing, that commitment was requested time and time again. It was not done. I was not in the position to basically go over and strong-arm him and put his hand and put -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier if he could finish his answer rather quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was not in a position to go over and take him by the hand and put a pen in his hand and put it to writing. There was absolutely nothing we could do about that, but we bookended it on both sides to the very best of our ability, and in my opinion we have a very, very strong and binding commitment by the Prime Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer and the information, with respect to a VOCM news report that there was a written commitment given in Ottawa, is part of the problem when there is no information and no debate, that we have to rely on the news services to report what was happening. They quoted our Premier as saying: I have it in writing this time.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this final question - and I know there is a sensitive meeting tomorrow which is why we want to show our support today so that nobody misunderstands the resolve of this particular Legislature. The Premier and the Finance Minister have been saying that the two major stumbling blocks - and this is in the public media - have been an annual cap and some problem with a time limit. Could the Premier confirm that along with retroactivity, which is being discussed, that those are the two major issues that they are trying to resolve tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the most important word that was used in that question was that they are with us and in support of us today, because we really did not know where they were a week ago just before the convention. Just before the convention they were against us and then they were with this, and they were against us. It depends on which way the wind is blowing, but I am delighted that the day before this very, very important meeting that you are with us because it is very, very important that you are with us. We want your support, we need your support, just as we need the continued support of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as we called on in Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I hope that you not only stay with us today, that you stay with us tomorrow, and if the federal government does not deliver exactly what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were promised and are entitled to, that you stay with us the day after, and the month after, and the year after until we receive fairness and justice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last spring I asked - my questions are for the Premier by the way - the Premier questions about the sale of certain assets of FPI. At the time the Premier told me that he could not comment on this matter because FPI was a private company. However, he did assure this House and the people of the Province that he would stay on top of this file and do what was in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would assume by staying on top of this file the Premier meant that he was going to be kept apprized of what FPI was proposing to do, not only in the United States but also here in this Province.

In that case, I ask the Premier: Would he tell this House today when he first learned about FPI's plan to close the plant in Harbour Breton because the union and the people of Harbour Breton only heard about it this weekend through the media?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite has indicated, we have been in discussions with FPI since, I guess, late April on their proposed income trust transaction and also we have had numerous discussions with them on the state of processing in the Province: shellfish, shrimp, crab, and groundfish as well, Mr. Speaker.

We have a working group established with FPI, the FFAW and the Town of Harbour Breton as it relates to the situation in Harbour Breton. There have been numerous discussions on this issue. It has been certainly articulated to us on a number of occasions, as it has been to the union, to the town and to the local MHA, that there are potential structural problems associated with the plant in Harbour Breton and there are ongoing problems with the raw materials supply and frozen-at-sea cod.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding on Thursday past - I was out of the Province, but on Thursday past there was a meeting of this working group, where FPI -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister if he could complete his question quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, on Thursday past FPI informed the working group of the structural problems in Harbour Breton and there was a press release that went out on Friday. We were not informed that a press release was going out on Friday. We found out about it the next day. Well, Mr. Speaker, we were fully aware of the situation as it relates to the structural problems and what that could mean for the Harbour Breton facility in the short term and the long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, so the minister never did answer the question. Did you know that they were going to close the plant or didn't you?

But to go down to another one, Mr. Speaker. The Premier - I will ask this of the Premier. Premier, your Minister of Fisheries, when he sat on this side of the House, assured the mayors of Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton that the Tory Party would only accept layoffs at FPI if the union and the employer, FPI, mutually agreed to them through negotiations. Premier, you now have the ultimate layoff in Harbour Breton. Four hundred people were told this weekend that they no longer have jobs. Will the Premier now live up to the commitment that his minister gave these mayors two years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are engaged in a process with the company, with the union and with the town, to try and find a solution for Harbour Breton. There is a problem with the plant in Harbour Breton. There is a problem with raw material supply in the form of frozen-at-sea cod that has increased to over $3,000 a metric ton right now. There is a problem, as everybody in this country knows, with the Canadian dollar that is now trading at roughly $1.20 versus over $1.40 a couple of years ago.

Mr. Speaker, there are problems in the groundfish industry throughout the world, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a process with the company, the union and the town. We are going to stick to that process, and hopefully at the end of it we will find a solution for Harbour Breton. That is all that anybody can commit to right now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I guess the answer, Minister, is that you are not going to honour your commitment. I just wonder what happened in your short journey from right here to where you sit today.

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Premier. He stated in the media this morning that FPI's corporate restructuring plan would be put to a free vote before this floor. Mr. Speaker, as the Premier knows, this is a complex issue. What I am asking him today is that he establish an all-party committee or a standing committee from this House, so that we can review this plan that FPI has put forward, as well as look at the closure of the plant in Harbour Breton.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed FPI income trust transaction is a continuing negotiation between the Province and the company. If we arrive at a point where there is something to bring before the House, we will bring it before the House. In advance of that, Mr. Speaker, there will certainly be a communication between this side of the House and that side of the House on what is entailed; there will be a full briefing. Certainly, we will be prepared to give a full briefing of the situation. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have committed to.

The Premier has had discussions with the leaders of the opposition parties back about a month ago, on our intent as it relates to the FPI Act and what might be done with that. When we have something to bring before the House, all members will be fully apprised and fully informed of the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has informed us of today is: he did not know that the plant was going to close in Harbour Breton; he will not honour the commitment that he made to the mayors and people of these particular towns; he will not establish an all-party committee to do something for these people. I ask the minister: What will you do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we will do is ask the appropriate questions; more than this government did when they were on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I remember vividly, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, when he sat in the Premier's chair, saying, I didn't have enough interest to ask a question.

Well, we have enough interest, Mr. Speaker, to ask questions. We have been asking questions since April. We are engaged in a process with the company and the union and the town. We will remain engaged with that, and, as we did with Arnold's Cove, if there is a viable solution we will engage. If there is not a viable solution, Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Premier, or the Minister of Fisheries if he wishes to answer.

The Harbour Breton fish plant is an economic anchor for the Town of Harbour Breton and for the entire Connaigre Peninsula. It provides 400 direct jobs, and more than that number in indirect and induced employment. This is a devastating day for Harbour Breton, and a dark day for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

My question to the Premier or to the minister is - and I know about the meetings being held, but I do not trust the company - what immediate action is this government going to take to ensure the future of the Harbour Breton fish plant and the Town of Harbour Breton?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member has said, we have had a number of meetings on this. There is nobody, Mr. Speaker, in this Province who could give any community, in the face of the resource problems that we have, in the face of competition in China, in the face of a changing frozen-at-sea cod market, in the face of a substantially increased Canadian dollar, any commitment as to what lies in the short-term future or the long term. All we can do, Mr. Speaker, is commit to a process to try and find a solution.

This time last year, when we took over government, National Sea and Bruce Wareham, and the people of Arnold's Cove, came to us to see if we could find a solution. We told them then that we did not know if we could find a solution, but we engaged in a process and, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we found a solution.

Now, will we be able to do it this time? I do not know, but we did it the last time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House or no one in Harbour Breton or no one in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who will want to see a solution to it anymore than I do, and the minister is aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, last year FPI reached a tentative Memorandum of Understanding with its unions for the company's groundfish operations on the Province's South Coast, which was to see significant capital investment while protecting workers and enhancing plant productivity. What happened to the proposed investment in the plant at Harbour Breton? It did not happen. The company, as I said, cannot be trusted. It is Harbour Breton today, tomorrow it will be Fortune, and the next day it will be Bonavista. Will the government tell FPI that the decision to close Harbour Breton is unacceptable and hold them accountable for doing so?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member knows, and as I have said previously here in the House today and in the media outside of the House prior to today, we have engaged in a process with FPI, the company and the union, to try and find a solution in Harbour Breton. Mr. Speaker, I understand that commitments were made by the company in Harbour Breton. We will do what we can to try and facilitate the honouring of those commitments. However, Mr. Speaker, we all must realize that the water on the beans presents a serious set of challenges in Harbour Breton just as it does in Englee.

Mr. Speaker, there is no easy solution in any of these communities when there is a lack of resource. On the Connaigre Peninsula, just three weeks ago on November 2, we announced a fin fish aquaculture loan guarantee initiative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just three weeks ago we announced a fin fish aquaculture loan guarantee initiative to help in feed financing. That, Mr. Speaker, is directly targeted in the initial stages at the Connaigre Peninsula. That might solve some of the problems, we do not know but we will see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape le Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, without involvement from the provincial government it is questionable whether this operation in Harbour Breton will continue, and the one in Fortune and Bonavista will go next. It is obvious that FPI sees no future for processing plants in this Province.

I am asking the Premier, is he prepared to have FPI live up to the rhetoric of investing in new plants for these communities rather than investing in floating offshore plants that will see the end of onshore processing in the Province by FPI?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To directly answer that question, we will ensure that FPI lives up - and all other fish processing companies in this Province - to its requirements for producing in this Province, in our plants; not at sea, not to be shipped out. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we will bringing a revised Fish Inspection Act to the floor here in the coming weeks. That is why we are bringing a Fish Licensing Board Policy to the floor here in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, we will ensure that they live up to their commitments in the short term; unlike, Mr. Speaker, some of the commitments that were not forced to be honoured by the government opposite when they were over here in the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions for the Premier concerns the Atlantic Accord. Is the Premier and his government being pressured by Ottawa to dedicate Atlantic Accord payments to debt reduction? Will he assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that his government will not give in to such patronizing demands and tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the fiscal and financial benefits of the Atlantic Accord will be available to improve needed services for the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman opposite that when it comes to the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is the Atlantic Accord or anything else, we will be pressured by absolutely nobody and we have not been pressured.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I understand that he respects that and I appreciate the support of the New Democratic Party in this particular issue.

Having said that, there have been suggestions at one point in time that this possibly go to debt. There has been a whole myriad of suggestions that have been put forward. The Minister of Finance sat through a twelve-hour marathon last Thursday. Of course, there were all kinds of suggestions put forward but our position has been consistent, has been solid, has been firm. We have resolve in this. We are going to stay the course on this. We are not moving off the position. The proposal that was put to the Prime Minister on June 5, the proposal that was accepted by the Prime Minister on June 5, the proposal that was not reneged on or negated by the Prime Minister and all the correspondence since, and we are going to stay the course.

As I said before, I will say again, we will not back down and we will not say yes to less under any circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Premier knows, our party, both provincially and federally, has consistently supported the position that Newfoundland should get 100 per cent, with no clawbacks, from the very beginning.

What I want to ask the Premier, there has been a lot of numbers bandied about during this debate and discussion. Can the Premier tell the House: What is the amount of additional revenues that would be available if the Prime Minister, Mr. Martin, meets his commitment? What is the additional money that will be available under the Atlantic Accord in the next fiscal year? Can people in this Province, like patients requiring Alzheimer's drugs or drugs for Multiple Sclerosis, people on the minimum wage, those who are in child care and home care workers, can all of these -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. HARRIS: Can these people look to the Atlantic Accord, and new payments under the Accord, for improvements in their condition as a result of this deal being achieved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. gentleman opposite knows, we were left with a fiscal mess in this Province. We have a huge hole to climb out of as a result of the damage that was done by the past Liberal government. The study that was done back in - I guess during Christmas of last year, showed that we are facing future billion dollar deficits. So we have a huge deficit to try and overcome.

A very simple answer to your question though is that there is no way of predicting because we do not know next year exactly what the dollar is going to be and we do not know what the price of oil is going to be. It is a moving target, so it is impossible to pin that down. We have various projections done on various scenarios but we cannot decide - not decide, we cannot say exactly what the price of oil is because we do not know. Five or six years ago it was down around $12 a barrel. It has been up over $50 a barrel. So, it is a moving target. As a result of that there is no way to give you an exact answer, and I am not trying to be cute. I am not trying to avoid the question. I am not trying to be evasive under any circumstances, but the calculation is easy to make based on various scenarios and you, yourself, of course can do that calculation as easy as I can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated to the third party has expired.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Minister, the Premier announced today in the media that certain legal opinions had been obtained with regard to the FPI restructuring and their marketing arm in particular. The Premier also indicated there would be a debate and a free vote in this House regarding that issue. I assume such legal opinions would have gone through your Department of Justice. Would you undertake to table these opinions in the House, or, if not, at the very minimum provide copies of those legal opinions to the Opposition so we can prepare for that debate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member now knows, or should know, that legal opinions obtained by the Department of Justice are for the benefit of the government and it would be inappropriate to disclose those opinions unless the Premier and the government should authorize that disclosure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Well, it is nice to see at least one Marshall is allowed to speak for themselves on that side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Minister, I ask you again: Could you at least tell us -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister at least tell us if the issue of violation that the Premier referenced this morning in the media - there was a legal opinion that said there was one possible violation of the FPI Act - could the minister tell us if that relates to the 15 per cent shareholder issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that the legal opinions that the department has obtained are for the benefit of the government and will only be disclosed with the approval of the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is time for one more short question and an equally short answer.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Oh, I have plenty of questions, enough to keep us all winter.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have about twenty-five seconds left. The hon. member has been recognized. A quick question and an equally quick answer.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can be fast when I have to be.

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. It is estimated that the Province will receive in excess of $200 million in extra oil revenues and gas taxes along with the new health care money and adjustments to equalization. This does not include the anticipated new money from the Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this new revenue, I ask the Finance Minister: When are you going to give the people of this Province a financial update?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For a short answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if that is in my repertoire.

Whose estimates are you using, number one. I hope it is not yours, because they were never very accurate in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Secondly, I hope that before next week is out I will be able to give a fiscal update (inaudible). I have been very preoccupied with the Atlantic Accord. Unless something unforeseen takes an inordinate amount of time over the next week or so, you should hope to receive them by next week and then we will see the true, accurate figures that our government is so used to putting forth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Public Tender Act Exceptions reports for the months of May, June, July, August and September, 2004.

I wish to also table the 2003-2004 Activity Letter for the Consumer Protection Fund for Prepaid Funeral Services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling eight Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2005-2006 to the 2008-2009 fiscal years.

Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 28(4)(e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council for the creation of one new activity of expenditure for the 2004-2005 fiscal year.

Pursuant to section 28(4)(e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two special warrants relating to the 2004-2005 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?

The Speaker would like at this time to note that, in accordance with section 5.(4) of the Internal Economy Commission Act, I am pleased to inform the House of Assembly that the hon. Tom Marshall, Member for Humber East, has been appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to replace Ms Elizabeth Marshall, the Member for Topsail, on the Commission of Internal Economy as of October 6, 2004.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People of the Province." (Bill 39)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine." (Bill 34)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill 40)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 35)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement." (Bill 44)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board." (Bill 36)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists." (Bill 43)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act." (Bill 42)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 38)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency." (Bill 41)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

I am sorry. I apologize; I did not see the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune standing.

Reverting to Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS Fishery Products International is a critical part of the fishing industry, provides economic and social well-being and contributes to stability and prosperity in many communities of this Province; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador refused to lift the 15 per cent share restriction that is forcing an end to the NEOS Seafood bid to buy all outstanding shares of FPI; and

WHEREAS in correspondence with government and reports in the media, John Risley said in May 2001 - and I quote - "None of the FPI employees have anything to fear" and "We are going to do this (expand the company) by investing in the company, not laying people off"; and

WHEREAS in a Proxy Circular to Holders of Common Shares of FPI in April 2001, Mr. Risley stated, "(We) do not intend to close any of FPI's processing facilities in Newfoundland or elsewhere."; and

WHEREAS in 2002 when FPI was preparing to implement an investment strategy which would have resulted in more than 600 job losses in the three groundfish plants in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton, government undertook to ensure that FPI lived up to previous commitments on employment related issues, resulting in legislative amendments to the FPI Act to protect processing workers; and

WHEREAS in January of 2003, FPI and its unions reached a tentative Memorandum of Understanding for the company's groundfish operations on the Province's South Coast, which promised significant capital investment while protecting workers and enhancing plant productivity; and

WHEREAS FPI is a creature of the Fisheries Restructuring Act and later the FPI Act; and

WHEREAS FPI announced that it will not be reopening the Harbour Breton fish plant, rocking the entire Province, shaking the industry and devastating FPI workers, families and communities along the South Coast;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly calls on the provincial government to demand that FPI make the necessary investment to save the Harbour Breton fish plant and restore confidence and trust in the company.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice that on Wednesday, Private Members' Day, the motion just put forward by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune will be the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly on the issue of the minimum wage. The petitioners ask the House of Assembly to urge and call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the minimum wage to at least $8 an hour by 2005.

Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a big jump, from $6 an hour today to $8 an hour, but $8 an hour is not even enough, when you look back at the history of the minimum wage in this Province from 1976 when the minimum wage was $2.50 an hour. In order for the minimum wage of today to have the same purchasing power as it did in 1976, if you take into account inflation, our Province's minimum wage would have to be $8.40 an hour, or 40 per cent higher than its current $6 an hour rate, to keep pace with inflation.

What, in fact, has been happening, Mr. Speaker, over the last twenty-five or thirty years in this Province, is that the minimum wage is actually lower now than it was before. This is a very significant problem for the low income people of this Province. I know the minister is receiving submissions from various bodies of people over the last little while on the minimum wage. It is a very important consideration, a lot of people affected by it. Some 13 or 14 per cent of our workforce is affected by it, one of the highest percentages of workforces in the country affected by the minimum wage.

There are a substantial number of myths about it - I only have a couple of minutes today on this petition, but I understand we have others coming - a number of myths, often perpetrated by such organizations like the Board of Trade or business organizations. They say, for example, in June of this year that study after study on minimum wage impact found that increases in the minimum wage are very likely to reduce employment opportunities, especially for young and unskilled workers who typically occupy lower wage jobs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the research shows just the opposite. The research indicates that the impact of increasing the minimum wage on employment is virtually negligible, that the majority of minimum wage earners also live in low income households and therefore increasing the minimum wage actually helps alleviate poverty. In other words, instead of hurting those it is supposed to help, higher minimum wages actually help the lowest paid and low income families.

Mr. Speaker, we have a significant problem in this Province because of minimum wage. Many people's wages are directly at the minimum wage itself, but there are also a number of other jobs that keep themselves ten cents, twenty cents, twenty-five cents above the minimum wage as a matter of course. By raising the minimum wage you are also effectively improving the livelihoods of many other people who aren't receiving the minimum wage.

We have seen, over the last number of years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: A few moments to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to clue up.

MR. HARRIS: We have seen many increases in the economy in the last number of years, but it hasn't helped the people on minimum wage. The only way to do that is to have this government substantially increase the minimum wage to $8.00 an hour as requested by these petitioners.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition again on behalf of the youth of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Creative Arts Festival was held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where schools from all across Labrador gathered to put off different plays. Mr. Speaker, for the last couple of years they have had a big setback, and that is they don't have an auditorium in which to meet and do their plays.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Tourism, to the Minister of Education and to the Premier, that this is a shame. The previous government, that I was apart of, committed $2.4 million to build an auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to serve all of the children in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the upcoming Budget with no announcement from this government yet, it puts them back another year. The sad part about the Creative Arts Festival this year is that there are rumors going around that this may be the last year.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why is because the frustration for the children in Labrador not to have an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area to do what students in other parts of the Province take for granted. Mr. Speaker, that is a shame. That is a shame. The people in the Upper Lake Melville area have gone out and raised over $25,000 of their own money to make their contribution. Today, when the present government talks of being fair to rural Newfoundland and Labrador in having an agenda, then I think that it is a big ‘misjustice' today to know that as these children leave the Creative Arts Festival in the Upper Lake Melville area they may have performed their last play or their last act and, Mr. Speaker, that is a shame. That is a shame. That is a shame by this government to defer such an important, vital part that the children in Labrador need to advance their livelihood, their little way of life that they want to show the rest of Labrador while they attend the last years of their schooling.

Mr. Speaker, as groups book to perform plays and exhibitions across Newfoundland and Labrador, they cannot do that in the Upper Lake Melville area because they do not have an auditorium. The Upper Lake Melville area and Labrador is losing out. I say to the Premier, to the Minister of Tourism and to the Minister of Education, please do the right thing. Before the children leave tomorrow to go back to their communities, not knowing whether they will have the opportunity to come back again next year, do the right thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. ANDERSEN: - and make the announcement that (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from Labrador West. I will read the petition, Mr. Speaker, calling upon the Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS all other residents of Labrador, except Labrador West, can travel to Goose Bay or St. Anthony for medical services at a cost of $40 return airfare; and

WHEREAS residents of Labrador West have to pay nearly $500 to access the same services.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to amend

this discriminatory policy immediately so as all residents of Labrador West can avail of the same services at the same cost as other residents living in other regions of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for a long, long time, probably more than thirty years, and it was not until recently that people in Labrador West, for the most part, were aware that this subsidy existed for people in other regions of Labrador. It is only right that people in Labrador West expect to be treated the same as people living in other parts of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the services that are available - I will use Goose Bay as an example - where now the hospital has facilities for CT scans in particular, it is quite common now for people in Labrador West to be referred there for that service. Mr. Speaker, why should the people in Labrador West have to pay $500 to avail of that service? We have, by right as a Canadian citizen, by constitution, have the right to access health care and financial reasons should not be a barrier in obtaining that health care.

I ask government to review their policy in this area immediately to allow for the people of Labrador West - when they are referred to Goose Bay - to be able to do so at the same cost as people on the North Coast of Labrador can travel to Goose Bay or people on the South Coast or The Straits can go to St. Anthony. We are not asking that the subsidies in the other areas be dropped. We know the cost of travel from Labrador to obtain medical services, and it is quite high.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, on a local phone in radio program we heard the plea, or the case of a young woman in Goose Bay who wanted to bring her daughter to St. John's for surgery. The fact that she had to have ten surgeries; nine prior, this being the tenth one for her child. The cost is exorbitant. We heard the response from - I think it was the Mayor of Wabush, who rallied the airlines to provide tickets for her. I would certainly commend Provincial Airlines for taking the initiative to do that, but, Mr. Speaker, we should not have to depend upon the goodwill of private companies in this Province, or other people through the different forms of charity, to obtain a quality health service. People in Labrador West are demanding, and rightfully so, to be treated the same as any other resident -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just a few minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador West rightfully expect to be treated the same as other residents within Labrador when it comes to obtaining health services for them and their families.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district. I am not going to read the whole petition because it is a little bit long, but it is regarding the government's decision not to clear snow on the road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay of the Trans-Labrador Highway during the winter months.

Mr. Speaker, people in my district were as shocked as I was. When I was in the Budget lock-up this past year and the government brought in the Budget, one of the restrictions that they placed in the Budget was their inability to provide funds for snow clearing in the Province. They outlined a number of sections of road that would not be cleared. Many of them we have heard people debate about in the Province over the last little while that were considered class four or cabin or cottage roads. Since then we have learned that numbers of families and residents actually live on these roads and have for a long period of time. One of those other sections of road was no side road and no class four road, it was a main highway system through Labrador and it was one of the pieces of highway that connects both ends of my district.

Mr. Speaker, government's decision to not clear this road is causing undue hardship for the business community and for the residents of this particular area. I am going to give you a couple of examples because I think that you would never see a decision like this on any other road in this Province other than probably where this location is in Labrador. I did not see the hon. minister out saying that he would close a section of road going into Comfort Cove or Laurenceton or Notre Dame Junction or any of those areas in his own district, but he did make a decision to close a section of highway, a main highway system in Southern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my district have become accustomed, yes, to the fact that there are heavy snow conditions on that section of road, and yes, we have accepted the fact that there are certain times during the year when we are restricted from using that particular highway, but for the minister to close it down for four months of the year, from January until May 1, is totally inexcusable. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, it is a lack of responsibility that they are showing to the people of that area of the Province.

For example, before the highway was built, the people in my district had storage tanks for fuel and they could store enough fuel for a four month period. Well, that is not the case today, Mr. Speaker, and when this section of road is closed we are going to have difficultly getting a fuel supply on that part of the coast to some of our operators.

We were accustomed to having large warehouses attached to our businesses so they could bring in goods in the fall of the year and store them for probably a period of four months, but when the highway was built they took out those storage sheds and those warehouses because they thought they had another access -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: About 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A small amount of time has been granted.

The hon. the member may continue.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, now they do not have that storage capacity and there is no subsidy program in place to offset the cost of getting goods in. The program that is there is already overextended. It is running out of money - it did last year - on an annual basis, so there is not an alternative.

Government has not made a decision on a centralized airport for the region. In fact, they still do not even have the study in their office that was started more than two years ago, as I understand, Mr. Speaker. So what is the alternative for access for people in this part of Labrador? Right now, their only alternative is to get that road open and get it cleared this winter.

I ask the minister to have some heart and to honour the commitments that they made in the election, to have some prosperity and some economic opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, no leave.

MS JONES: - in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and to clear this road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Before we move to the Orders of the Day, earlier this afternoon when the Member for Burin-Placentia West was speaking, we welcomed him back after a very significant health challenge. We would also like to recognize and welcome back the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader would know that when I asked my first question today I gave notice that at this point in time, which is the appropriate point in time pursuant to Standing Order 36 of our Orders, that I had given notice earlier, and I was disappointed the Government House Leader was trying to make sure that did not happen.

Mr. Speaker, this is the appropriate time to give notice, under Standing Order 36, and ask for leave of the House, because we can do anything by leave. We understand that the Premier, who is only one member and who believes in free votes, does not think that what I am about to say is important and necessary, but we all have an equal vote in this Legislature and I am sure that the members opposite will make up their own minds.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to ask leave, to move that the House adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent importance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if he wants to ask for leave, he can stand up and ask for it. He cannot stand up on a point of order and then ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: In the exchange that occurred just a few moments ago, when both members were standing, the Chair recognized, of course, the leader of the government on the government side. However, there had been a notification earlier to the Chair that the Leader of the Opposition intended, at this stage, to ask leave of the House. When the member stood in his place, the Chair is now recognizing the Leader of the Opposition having spoken about it earlier. It is not a point of order, but the Chair is prepared to hear the submission being put forward asking for leave of the House to adopt a motion under Section 36 of the Standing Orders.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as you would know and some members would know, Standing Order 36 suggests that leave to make a motion for adjournment of the House, when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, must be asked after the ordinary daily routine and before Orders of the Day, which is now.

Mr. Speaker, then it says, where possible and appropriate, notice should be given - which I did with your office this morning. Your office was contacted, through the Clerk, to indicate that I planned to do this, this afternoon.

The member, Mr. Speaker, which is myself, in rising under Section 36 to make such a motion, rise in his place, ask leave for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, and then states the matter, which I am about to do.

The matter, Mr. Speaker, is that probably by this time tomorrow - probably by this time tomorrow, twenty-four hours from now - in the words of the Premier and the Finance Minister and the Government House Leader - because they are the only three that I have heard speak to this publicly - they suggest that we are going into a meeting tomorrow that they are describing as a defining moment in the history of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think that makes it pretty urgent. Very few defining moments come along. Now, the language of the Premier, the language of the Finance Minister is that a meeting tomorrow is being described as a potential defining moment.

The point is this, and I will forward to you in the Chair for your consideration the motion that I would like for you to consider, to see whether it is - as the Standing Order says, as to whether it is in order and whether then it is of an urgent nature, in your opinion, and if so, I would suggest, in making these few comments about the urgency of it. It is no good for us to try to debate it tomorrow. We had asked to open this Legislature at an earlier date a month ago. It was denied by the government and the Premier. We asked to open the Legislature two weeks ago after the issue really came apart in Ottawa. We were denied -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Orders are quite clear, that the member, operating under section 36, should stand in his place, state the matter and which has been done. We are reluctant to enter into debates on the merits. That would be debating the issue and that is not the purpose at this stage in our proceedings.

The Chair - having received the notice here of a motion called resource revenue commitment - will permit three speakers to very briefly, about a minute, not more than a minute each, to say why this matter should be debated this afternoon, and very brief submissions. We are talking here about the urgency of the time not the urgency of the debate. The Chair will hear submissions of about a minute each from the leaders of the three respective parliamentary groups.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

This is a new twist, obviously, to permit three speakers, and that is fair enough. Are you indicating one speaker from the Official Opposition, one speaker from the NDP and one speaker from government as to whether this is urgent or not? Is that what you have indicated?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has to make a decision. The Chair's decision is whether or not the Chair is satisfied that this matter is of sufficient urgency to have this debated this afternoon instead of at some other time. The Chair will call a recess and make that decision. However, before the Chair calls a recess to make the decision on the matter of urgency in the debate, the Chair will take advice from three speakers in the House. I have asked the three leaders of the parliamentary groups if they would like to make a submission, about a minute each, before the Chair recesses in the House to make a decision on the matter of urgency in accordance with section 36.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of clarification. It is my understanding, reading the Standing Orders, that the member has to ask leave. It says clearly, "The Member desiring to make such a motion..." - which I have not heard one yet. So if he wants to make it, then let us hear it according to the rules, not according to the rules that he wishes to make up but according to the rules that all of us have to operate under here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: "The Member desiring to make such a motion..." - matters of urgent public importance - "...rises in his or her place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter." In section 6 it also says, "Except with the requisite leave or support the motion cannot be made."

So, before we can do anything, according to our own rules, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the member must ask leave of the House to put the motion forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of clarification. When the Opposition Leader was speaking, when he arose on the first occasion, he did indicate in his commentary he was asking leave of the House under section 36, and -

MR. E. BYRNE: He said he would be doing it.

MR. SPEAKER: He said he would be doing it. Well, I assumed that when the hon. the member forwarded to the Speaker a resolution, then that would indicate to the Speaker that leave was being requested. However, I would seek clarification from the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it is technically a point of order. I do not know if it is a response to the point of clarification. Technically, a point of order says: Questions raised with a view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders. That is the essences of a point of order.

My reading of section 36(4) seems quite clear. "The Member then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he or she thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the Member has leave...".

Now, the Leader of the Opposition told the Speaker this morning, through the Clerk, what was going to happen today, when it would be raised. The Leader of the Opposition stood in his place here at the appropriate time today, cited that he was making this request under Standing Order 36, provided Your Honour with a copy of the written statement that he proposes, that he is seeking leave for - now, before we get to the leave stage, whether it is or is not granted, it says very clearly - and I bring this up because we talk about departures from the Orders. We are not discussing here whether one, two, three or anybody gets up here to speak to the matter that has been handed to Your Honour.

The Speaker, I would submit, very clearly says, "The Member then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker..." Not who? The Speaker does not create new rules, I would suggest Your Honour, by saying one, two or three people are going to speak. The question here is, "...the Speaker, who, if he..." - in this particular case - "...thinks it in order..." - number one - "...and of urgent public importance..." - number two.

I would suggest that the proper thing we need done here first and foremost before we go anywhere is Your Honour has to make a decision. Is what you have been handed, the written statement that you have been handed by the Leader of the Opposition, is it in order as a motion and is it of urgent, public importance? Once that decision is made by Your Honour, then we decide where we are going to go from here.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that is precisely what the Chair is attempting to achieve. Before the Chair makes a decision as to whether the motion submitted by the Opposition Leader is in order, the Chair is wanting to have some consultation with the leaders of Parliament so the Chair can have that benefit before the Chair recesses the House to decide whether or not this particular request or motion is indeed in order.

With that, I recognize the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand the rule, Standing Order 36, we have never had this kind of technical debate before in my experience in the House. It is very clear. What it says, "If objection is taken..." - and what I hear from the other side sounds like some kind of objection. If it is an objection taken to the request for leave, it is very simple. The rule says that you ask the House and see if there are twelve people who support the issue.

Under 36.(5), "If less than 12 but not less than 3 Members rise in their places, the question whether the Member has leave... shall be put forthwith, without debate..." Obviously, if twelve people support it there must be a debate. So the issue here, the leave is required. The whole House does not have to have leave to have the debate. There only needs to be twelve people.

There appears to be some objection to the leave over there, but it is the Speaker who ultimately decides whether or not there is an emergency debate. The only issue here is whether or not there is going to be a debate about whether leave should be granted by the Speaker, because that is the way the rule is written, Mr. Speaker. It is not whether or not this side is going to grant leave but if it happens, if some objection is taken to the motion being put forward then there is a question asked by the Chair who supports it. "...the Speaker requests those Members who support the motion to rise in their places and if not less than 12 Members rise accordingly the Speaker calls upon the Member who has asked for leave." - and in which case there will be some debate. If there are less than twelve then the motion is actually put to the House and the votes taken, so it is all over with. If you only have three people supporting the resolution there is actually a vote in the House, but if there are twelve people then there is a debate on it and the Speaker decides.

That is my interpretation of the rules, Mr. Speaker, and it seems to me that is being ignored by my colleague opposite.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the rules are clear, I am not debating. Here is the process for it. I will go through it.

Leave to make a motion - which I have not heard the hon. member ask for leave yet - leave to make a motion for the purpose of adjournment of the House, where you consider a matter of public importance. That is step one, correct.

"Where possible and appropriate, notice of leave to make a motion under this Standing Order may be provided to the Speaker -" It doesn't say shall but may, and I understand that the member did. Fair enough! - "to make a motion under this Standing Order may be provided to the Speaker before the House opens on the day on which the Standing Order is invoked."

Thirdly, "The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his or her place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance and states the matter."

"The member then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to - you, Your Honour, - the Speaker, who, if he or she thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the House."

We have done none of that yet. I don't know why we are even debating it. We have not followed proper procedure here. That has not been handed, the Speaker has not determined, he has not asked the leave of the House. Those are the rules. That is not something I am making up. That is something we all made up, that we govern ourselves by.

Fifth point, "If less than 12 but not less than 3 members rise in their places, the question whether the Member has leave to move the adjournment of the House shall be put forthwith, without debate, and determined if necessary by a division.

My suggestion, I say to my colleagues in the House, lets follow steps (1) through (5) and we will see where we get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been sitting here since the House started today and I don't know where the Government House Leader says we haven't done subsections (1) (2) (3) and we are in the first part of number (4). Number 36, subsection (1) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Now, the Government House Leader has had his time to respond to this. I would appreciate an opportunity to make my point as well.

Section 36, subsection (1) gives the time when a person must make an application under this section. It must be done before we embark upon the Orders of the Day. That has been done. We have done it now before the Orders of the Day.

(2) "Where possible and appropriate, notice of leave to make a motion under this Standing Order may be provided to the Speaker..." That was done this morning by myself, as Opposition House Leader, to the Clerk through the Speaker. That has been done.

(3) "The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his or her place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter." - which has been done.

(4) "The Member then hands a written statement..." That has been done. The Government House Leader says that has not been done. To my knowledge, Your Honour has in your hand a copy of the matter that the Opposition Leader referred to here.

The next step in this process, as I read these rules, is that Your Honour decides, now: Is it in order what you have been handed and is it a matter of urgent public importance? Once you make that determination, then we go on to see if there is an objection.

If you make a determination that it is not in order, or you make a determination that it is not of urgent public importance, it does not go anywhere beyond that, but if you make an order that it is in order and that it is urgent public importance, then we go to the point of the process of how you vote on it, and that is outlined in (5).

So, as I say, the point we are at now is, Your Honour has to make the decision: Is it in order and is it of urgent public importance?

My point of order that I raised when I started this was because Your Honour had suggested you were going to solicit opinions and guidance from three people as to whether or not you, in making that order and making that decision about whether it was in order and whether it was of urgent public importance - that is my understanding of what you asked us.

What I am saying on my point of order is that, with all due respect, the Chair is out of order to ask that, because that is creating a new rule. The onus is upon the Chair, the Speaker, Your Honour, to make the decision whether the Leader of the Opposition's written statement that he has given to you is in order and is of urgent public importance. The voting procedure is quite correct, as the Leader of the NDP has pointed out, but we only ever get to that point in subsection (5) if Your Honour makes the decision on order and of public urgent importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is satisfied that when the Leader of the Opposition stood in his place, he started off by saying: I wish to rise to ask leave of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance under Section 36. I do believe that Hansard will show that. Then, in the discussion when I mentioned that I would be asking members for some advice, the intent was that the Chair would ask for a short commentary on the urgency of the debate, not the urgency of the matter. The Chair wishes to consult at all times with the political leaders of the House, and to do so sometimes in a public forum, and in this particular case was not creating new orders. The Chair is always anxious to engage in dialogue and to seek advice.

With that said, the House will recess and the Chair will come back with a ruling on the request made by the Leader of the Opposition in a short while.

This House is now recessed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to rule on the matter of the urgency of the debate.

I note that the unedited transcript from Hansard quotes the Leader of the Opposition as saying as follows, "Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move that the House adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent importance."

The Chair would rule that would meet the requirements of Standing Order 36.(3).

In considering the matter as to whether or not this matter should qualify for an urgent debate in the House of Assembly this afternoon, I would like to refer to some references. In Marleau and Montpetit, page 587, it says, "Although the Standing Orders give considerable discretion to the Speaker in deciding if a matter should be brought before the House for urgent consideration, certain criteria must be weighed. The Speaker determines whether a matter is related to a genuine emergency which could not be brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means, such as during a Supply day."

The Speaker also draws members' attention to the references from the House of Commons in Ottawa. "A number of Speakers have refused applications for emergency debates during consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne because the Address debate allows for discussion on a wide range of topics."

Members are invited to look at the Debates of February 18, 1972, April 4, 1989, and September 25, 1997, for references on this particular matter.

Also in reference to Beauchesne, we have several references. It says as follows: Urgency within this rule does not apply to the matter itself but means urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest demands discussion take place immediately.

Based on that, and the Parliamentary practices that we have had in this House, the last time that a motion was successful for emergency debate occurred in 1978. There have been many applications since then; however, Speakers have encouraged, on some occasions, members to seek consensus from both sides of the House. We have had emergency debates when both sides have agreed with leave to carry on an emergency debate; however, on this particular matter, the Chair is satisfied that on the Order Paper today there are opportunities for members to debate this particular motion, so the Chair would rule, in accordance with Standing Order 36, that this particular matter does not qualify and meet the requirements for emergency debate this afternoon; in other words, for the House to adjourn for the purpose of discussing this particular matter at this particular time. There are other opportunities offered in debate for this matter to be discussed.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Order 1, Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1, Address in Reply.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, when I stand here in the House, it is probably one of the most difficult days that I have had since I have been here in 1989. We have had lots of problems to deal with, and they are ongoing, with the Town of Ramea who have seen their fish plant close and no other form of employment in the town, and seen the population dwindle by about 66 per cent, probably even more.

We think of the community of Gaultois where, as we speak, the plant is not open. They are hoping that somebody will come in and eventually open the plant, but up to this particular time it has not happened.

Lo and behold, we have had problems with the aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir, on the Connaigre region, when I was a part of government. We paid out millions of dollars in subsidies to the different groups and so on that participated in the aquaculture industry. As the minister said earlier today, last month the government put in a line of credit for the companies who wanted to buy feed for their farms that they had there to feed the fish, and hopefully that, in itself, would be a very major step forward to ensure that the aquaculture industry move forward, and not only more forward but continue to grow.

Today, we have a situation where I never thought in my lifetime, when I grew up on the South Coast, only twelve miles from Harbour Breton, in a small community called Seal Cove, that I would ever be probably not even in the House of Assembly - I guess you do not dream these things - but I never dreamed that the plant in Harbour Breton would be closed and nobody would be able to work there. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever think it would happen. Sometimes you even have to pinch yourself, I guess, to make sure that it is really happening and that it is really true.

This just did not happen overnight, this particular problem in Harbour Breton. It is Harbour Breton today, but it is not only going to be Harbour Breton. There are going to be other plants that, hopefully, in the twenty minutes that I have, will find themselves in the next situation; like Fortune, like Bonavista, in the Deputy Speaker's district, and he recognizes, I am sure, just as much or more than I do. Anytime you hear the word, you really cringe as to what is going to happen.

So, here we are. I have participated in a number of meetings with the local union in the plant in Harbour Breton, headed up by Eric Day. Eric and his group of Mike, Gloria and Geraldine have done a tremendous job, and every time they have come here to town I have been with them and I have had an opportunity to go to FPI. It is the same thing with the council - Don Stewart. I have talked to those guys often. I did yesterday, and I talked to them again today, and it is very difficult for them, as it is for any person who has been involved in municipal government, like the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for Virginia Waters, who knows that, and, I guess, the Member for St. John's Center and others of you, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, knows it is very difficult in a small town - and, of course, the Member for Lake Melville. Again, there are others, but if I do not name everybody else then we will know we are in the same boat here.

It is very, very difficult for municipal people in small communities to generate jobs and be able to keep the economy growing. Harbour Breton really, over the last number of years, has been a flagship on the Connaigre Peninsula because the community has grown, and those of you who have gone down there recognize that because it is a service centre for the Connaigre Peninsula.

We put a new medical facility in there, replacing a cottage hospital that was built in 1955. We put an arena there that the people of Harbour Breton, through payroll deductions at FPI plant and so on, paid for lock, stock and barrel. Of course, there was government help involved but their portion they paid for; we burned the mortgage on that.

Then, of course, there are the individual businesses: Pro Hardware, Home Hardware, Foodland, Save Easy, and all of these different groups that are there, and the community, last year, saw about twelve houses being built in that particular community, and more were going to be done this year, and a new subdivision about to be done.

Lo and behold, here we are, we find ourselves in this situation today, but it did not start today. It started back, I guess, in 2001, when the group headed by John Risley wanted to buy FPI through the NEOS, I think, was the acronym that was used, and the government of the day, of which I was a part, said no to the plan that they wanted to do. They wanted to lay off a lot of people in Harbour Breton, in Fortune and in Marystown. We got a commitment from them, through the new board and what have you, that there be no layoffs in those communities. That particular company would then be vibrant, they would build new infrastructures, they would invest in existing infrastructures in those communities that had been there for time.

One of the plants was Harbour Breton. They made a commitment that they would reinvest in Harbour Breton, but they did not reinvest in the plant in Harbour Breton, to the point now where the company said they had an independent appraisal done, saying that the plant is not fit for workers to go in. An interesting proposal, though. I talked to the Mayor of Harbour Breton, because I was not at the meeting on Thursday. At the meeting was an official from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, from the town, from the union and from the company. They set up that small committee and they would inform the rest of us about what happened, knowing what had happened, had gone to all of the meetings that had happened up until that particular time with the minister a number of times as well. Lo and behold, then, they did not invest into this plant in Harbour Breton and now, as I said, they had an engineering study done that says the plant is not structurally sound to allow the workers to go in.

Now, they probably knew about that in April but they did not tell the people. They did not tell the people that when they closed the plant in April; but, do you know what? The people at that particular time trusted the FPI people because what they did when the plant would close over the years was, they would take some equipment out of Harbour Breton and they put it into Fortune for the Fortune people to use. When the plant closed in Fortune and operated in Harbour Breton again, they would bring the particular equipment back. They were sharing. Nobody thought anything about it.

In April of this year, when they closed, the people still had trust. People like Eric Day, people like Don Stewart, the people of Harbour Breton thought that the company was genuine and they would do the same thing again; but, do you know what? It was their intention in April to do it, and as Eric Day, the president of the union, said on Open Line this morning: If they had told us in April that the plant was not structurally sound, that it would never open again, we would have had some of our 300 people in Harbour Breton who would have tried elsewhere for employment so they would have gotten the fourteen weeks and be able to get top unemployment. It did not happen. The union was expecting and the town was expecting. They were kind of, in a sense, being led along that the plant would probably open.

Now, in the fall everybody knew about the structural defects in the plant and now - you know, we talked, as the minister did today, about the increase in the price of H and G cod, the frozen cod at sea, and all these types of things. The value of the Canadian dollar has escalated so that the profit margin is less than what it was. Everybody can understand that, but to lead the people to this situation...

On Friday afternoon, by the way, I heard about the FPI, like many other people did here, on the radio. They never had courtesy enough to phone and say this is what is happening in Harbour Breton. I have been to their meetings, and there were closed-door meetings. They asked us to be tight-lipped and not to say anything about it, and I did not say anything about it. Like I told the people in Harbour Breton, I did not want to be the one to blurt it out and cause some problem for the people of Harbour Breton, because this problem is a lot bigger than Oliver Langdon. It is a lot bigger than party politics. It is a community that is at stake in this situation, and not only this community but other communities as well, the whole way of life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I did not say anything. I kept it inside, like everybody else. I played along with those guys, and they shared information with all of us. Then, on Friday afternoon, on the radio, you hear that they had sent out a press release saying they were going to close the Harbour Breton plant. Do you know what? The mayor and the union rep were in St. John's on Thursday with meetings; they heard it on the radio. They did not even allow them the decency to go home to their people and have meetings and explain. They announced it Friday afternoon while those guys were on their way home. That is how they treated them.

This is a lot of the problem here that has happened to the people, the way that they have been treated and the way that they have been misled, as I would possibly say. But, you know, there is a situation in Harbour Breton that the whole community - I mean, it is like a sheet, a veil, over the whole community. People did not spend because they were kind of scared about what would happen this fall, but now, I mean, the situation where you have families that are going to be running out of EI in February and nowhere to turn.

You know, to talk about the company and the way that they did it, they brought in an independent engineering company to see if the plant was structurally sound for the people to go back to work in. I do not know who the company is - they did not tell - but what the town did, and this is where the municipal leader comes in, the Mayor of Harbour Breton said to the guy: By the way, we will get an independent study if you like. We will pay for it out of the town's funds, to see if what you are saying is correct. They said no, we will not allow you to do it.

Just look at the ramifications from that. Is there something that they have to hide? If they did not have anything to hide, why wouldn't they have given the town the right to select an engineer to go in to verify what they have already said? It does not make a difference, they said. Exactly right. It did not make a difference because the company, FPI, had a terrible third quarter this year; a terrible third quarter. They are strapped for cash and they know it. They themselves say: How can we get out of this situation for this third quarter? We will close Harbour Breton. We will close the Harbour Breton plant. Remember the plant is old. Remember that we have to find a way out.

By the way, they do have some fish that they can catch and process in Harbour Breton this fall. They did not catch 2,500 tons of redfish. They can open in January. They can process that 2,500 tons of redfish and can take next year's quota for 2005, another 2,500. They can have 5,000 tons of fish for Harbour Breton for next year, but they do not want to do that. My point, what I want to get out today is the fact that FPI's whole philosophy about doing work in Newfoundland has changed. Remember what they told us, and I read out some of it earlier today where John Risley says: You don't have to fear about us. You don't have to worry about jobs in Newfoundland. We are not going to lay people off. We are not going to close plants down. We are going to reinvest millions of dollars back into it. We are going to have people working. They said the talk but they did not walk the walk. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

I tell you, they did not reinvest in Harbour Breton. They did not reinvest in the plant in Harbour Breton. They did not reinvest in Fortune and they are not reinvesting in Bonavista. Do you know what they are reinvesting in? They are reinvesting in boats, floating factories. I guess you could call them floating fish plants because what FPI can say - for example, if the company does get really stuck for dollars they can sell the boats for money but they cannot sell the plant in Harbour Breton because they consider it to be worthless to them, and the plant in Fortune and the plant in Bonavista. That is what they are up to.

The other thing that they want to do - and they have asked the government over seven months to do that. I wrote to the Premier a couple of weeks ago and got a reply from his office. I said: Premier, if, as a government, you are going to allow them to sell the marketing arm of their company then get a commitment out of them that they will build a new plant in Harbour Breton. The Premier's office replied and said: We will take note of that and the Premier will be getting back to you in the future.

Here is the situation, they want to sell the marketing arm. Just think about the marketing arm and what they have done by the way. They have created an ocean cuisine company down in the United States. It is not FPI anymore, it is Ocean Cuisine International. Where are they setting it up? In Delaware. They are hoping, by the way, that this new company - that they can get themselves out from under the FPI Act. What will happen then? It will become an independent company in the U.S. What is going to happen to Marystown and what is going to happen to Fortune? What is going to happen to Burin and to Bonavista and to Harbour Breton? This is the profitable part of their company. This is what they have been doing over the years to make money so that if they needed some extra dollars to run Harbour Breton or to run Bonavista or to run Fortune, they have had an opportunity to do so. Now, what they are saying is: We are going to sell that particular arm of the company. We are going to call it the Ocean Cuisine. We are going to set it up in the U.S., independent from the Legislature here. Make no wonder that they are investing in new boats, the factory freezer floating fish plants on the ocean. Make no wonder. That is what they are doing.

The whole FPI aim is eventually not to process onshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you know what? I will predict here in the House of Assembly today that within ten years the only operation that you will see of FPI in Newfoundland is the headquarters up on O'Leary Avenue. That is all you will see, if you will let them have their way for it. That is the only reason why the headquarters is up on O'Leary Avenue, because an act in this Legislature said that they had to have their headquarters in Newfoundland and Labrador. If they had their way for it they would not even be here. That is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with people who are not up-front with us; people who will not tell you the truth.

I was in a room only recently with a union leader and he said: I had a great talk with Malcolm Rowe and it looks like there might be a little bit of glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel. Some glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel all right. They will tell you one thing and then eventually they go back and do something else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Derek Rowe.

MR. LANGDON: Derek Rowe, I am sorry. I made a mistake on that. I apologize for that.

But here is the situation, they will tell you one thing and then they will go behind you and do something else. I talked to Don Stewart on Sunday and Don said to me: Oliver, ever since I have been in Harbour Breton we have had the fish plant here. It used to owned by a company out of British Columbia. I forget the name. It escapes me right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: B.C. Packers, that is right. I remember when they did the hearing and stuff. When I was a boy I would go to Harbour Breton and see it; not by road but by boat because we were cut off. We had no road transportation and they were going guns there then.

Then the FPI came in, and Don said: Oliver, we had great faith in FPI. I will tell you one thing about Vic Young, when he was there - if you went in to Vic Young's office he would probably give you the worst-case scenario that you could expect, but you could believe it and, hopefully, at the end of the day you would get a little bit more, but not with this crowd because they have an agenda that they want to do that is contrary to everything that we wanted to do in the rural part of Newfoundland and Labrador. The thing about it is, when we talk about Harbour Breton, it is probably one of the rural parts of the Province, no doubt about it, down the Bay d'Espoir highway. We are out on the Coast, here on the Connaigre Peninsula, but we have almost become self sufficient, and hopefully we can improve on what we are doing today.

As I said earlier, I can't believe what I am seeing. We will tell FPI, and I will tell FPI today through the medium of the Legislature, that they will have a fight on their hands. There is no two ways about that. The people of Harbour Breton have worked for FPI, they have given their lives for the company, they have made millions of dollars for them, sweat equity into the plant, and they have done the things that have made the company profitable.

The other thing about it is, when I think of FPI I think of many of the tax dollars of people who are in Harbour Breton and all across the Province, when the company was restructured and government went in and bailed them out with hundreds of millions of dollars. Those were taxpayers' dollars. Now they want to walk away from it. They see it as a situation where they have the liberty, so to speak, to do what they want to.

I remember when I did economics in Grade 11, and that wasn't yesterday, it was a long, long time ago, and we talked about the different kinds of businesses that could be formed. One of them was a personal property, an individual corner store. Then there was the partnership, then of course there was the cooperative, and then finally the corporation. The big corporation they defined as an artificial person, an artificial person probably without any feelings, without any sympathy, without anything at all to do with people.

AN HON. MEMBER: No conscience.

MR. LANGDON: Exactly, no conscience. This is exactly what we are seeing.

It is my turn today in the corner that I represent of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is not only going to be mine it is going to be others. I tell you, they have no social conscience. It is the dollar. I recognize that a company has to be profitable and make money, but you cannot walk away from a community that you made a commitment to a year or so ago saying, we will not close your plant, we will not lay people off, and we will invest. These are the words of people who sit around the table and you believe it because their word is a bond. Before you turn around, they have pulled the rug out from under your feet and they have moved away and there is no future for the people in the community.

That is what we are seeing, we are seeing that if FPI has its way, because all of those plants - when you look at Marystown or you look at Fortune and you look at Harbour Breton, they are all rural areas. If you allow them to walk away from the commitments they have made, what does it do to that area? It devastates it. There is no way that anybody or any company can go into Harbour Breton and replace the 400 jobs directly at the plant and the 400 or so indirect jobs outside. It cannot be done. It will have a ripple effect in Harbour Breton. It will ripple through Seal Cove, and it will ripple through Hermitage and Gaultois and all the other communities, and they are having problems of their own. As I said earlier, the people in Gaultois thought that this year they were going to get their plant open. It did not happen, but let's hope and pray that it can or will in the future.

I am telling you, when we talk about the ripple effect, a lot of the people on the Connaigre Peninsula have to go to Grand Falls-Windsor where they buy cars and where they shop in the malls and other businesses. If that happens, and you have 400 people directly and another 400 people indirectly, what do you think happens to the economies in those communities? They feel the effects of it too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: I just want a minute to conclude.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute. I do not want to take any more of the time than is allocated to me. I will have an opportunity, I am sure, at other times to do it.

What I want to say is this, to the people of Harbour Breton: You have been through difficulties before, like the people in Ramea, like the people in Gaultois, but here is a situation where we will not back down here. Commitments were made by FPI. I know that when they come to government, the government will be firm too.

I am telling you, I have talked to the minister and he realizes, Harbour Breton in this particular case is not just a town; it is a region. I said to FPI the other day: If you shut the plant down in Harbour Breton, and if there is no future in the aquaculture industry, why don't you dig a ditch along animal land on the Bay d'Espoir highway and cut us all off, because there is nothing else down there.

I want to tell FPI that we will fight, that we will work, and that the resolve of the people in Harbour Breton has been more adamant than ever, that at the end of the day they will find a resolution to this particular problem, this devastating problem that they find in their community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is indeed an honour for me to stand in this hon. House today and again represent the people of the great District of Lake Melville in Labrador, and to bring to this House the issues of the people of Lake Melville and indeed the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last twelve months, as part of this government, this has been a learning experience for me, one that I have enjoyed tremendously. I must say, I have learned a lot about government and the operation of this House. I will say that I have more to learn, but I mut say I have enjoyed it tremendously.

Over the past, since the House closed, up in my district, it has been a very, very, busy summer. I want to take just a couple of minutes today to talk about some of the good things that we are doing in Labrador, and in particular the District of Lake Melville.

I want to also take this opportunity to congratulate the new President of the Innu Nation, Mr. Ben Michel, who was elected by the Innu people of Labrador, and Chief Anastasia Qupee, from the community of Sheshatshiu, and also Simon Pokue, the Chief of the community of Natuashish. These Innu leaders, Mr. Speaker, are working diligently with members of this government and with my office as we deal with the many issues that are affecting their communities. I must say that I look forward to the months ahead as we deal with issues such as Innu land claims and other issues related to the Innu of Labrador.

I saw earlier here today, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Labrador Inuit Association, Mr. William Andersen, and I certainly would like to take the opportunity to recognize him. I am not sure if he is still here, but I will say that I am looking forward to working with William and the Board of Directors of the Labrador Inuit Association as we move forward with the Inuit land claims of Labrador in this Legislature. I hope that we see progress on behalf of the federal government as we deal with the issue of land claims at that level also.

Mr. Speaker, just to go over some of the things that have been happening in the great District of Lake Melville over the past summer, we have seen, I think, pretty close to eleven ministers travel on behalf of this government to Labrador and to the District of Lake Melville, and I want to take this opportunity to thank them for taking the time to come up and deal with the many issues that were raised by my constituency.

In Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we had the Premier and Minister Joan Burke up in Northern Labrador along with our colleague from across the House, Member Wally Andersen, the Member for Torngat Mountains, and we had an opportunity to go up into Northern Labrador, a place that I know very well, Mr. Speaker, a place that I worked for some twenty-five years when I was in the employ of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We had the opportunity to go up and meet with community leaders throughout Labrador and to see first-hand some of the issues that I, and certainly the member across the way had brought to the government. It was a great trip and certainly the people of Northern Labrador enjoyed it, and they enjoyed the presence of the Premier as we went through the different communities.

Mr. Speaker, to look at some of the accomplishments of our government as we take, I guess, our first year in office, a year that saw us have to deal with the fiscal mismanagement of the previous government. I want to say that we had to make a lot of hard decisions. Some of those decisions certainly affected my constituency, as they affected every constituency in Labrador.

Having said that, there are a lot of good things happening in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. For instance, this year I am pleased to say that we did a trial case of the chip seal on the Trans-Labrador Highway, and five kilometres were done outside Happy Valley-Goose Bay, five kilometres outside the district of the Member for Labrador West. We did five kilometres over there, and we did five kilometres in Churchill Falls. I am happy to say, in my recent visit, in meetings I had with the people of Churchill Falls, they were very pleased that our government responded, because for many years the previous Administration, the only response they gave to the people of Churchill Falls about their paving was, they put up a sign saying: Rough road for the next 2.5 kilometres.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that under this government we have taken down that sign and we have put the new chip seal there and people of the community of Churchill Falls are grateful and very pleased that took place in certainly the first year of our mandate.

In Happy Valley-Goose Bay, this year our government obviously got into the paving of some nineteen streets in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The most pavement that was ever laid in the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay over the last ten years was laid this year, and the council and the mayor, Mayor Abbass, is very pleased that we were able to get into a 50-50 agreement, and we expect to do more things with the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Certainly the issue of a sewage treatment plant is foremost on our agenda as we work through that issue.

Also, I want to mention the beautiful community of Northwest River. In my district, the District of Lake Melville, I always say that the community of Northwest River is indeed the crown jewel of the tourism industry in my district, and this year we were able to pave five streets in the community of Northwest River.

I want to say to this hon. House today that in the coming year, in the summer of 2005, there will be a celebration in Northwest River. It will be certainly an opportunity, the 100 Year Anniversary of the Mina Hubbard Expedition. This is going to be a fantastic opportunity in the tourism industry to promote Northwest River and to promote the history of that particular region of my district.

Mr. Speaker, over the last week or so - and I am not sure if this is widely spread in the domain of the public, but I want to take this opportunity to talk about a project called the Churchill River project by a company called Markland Resources. Markland Resources, Mr. Speaker, is an exploration company of Nova Scotia. I had the opportunity to meet with them last week, along with the mayor and council from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, along with the President of the Innu Nation, Mr. Ben Michel and Mr. Daniel Ashini.

Markland Resources, Mr. Speaker, staked some 526 claims on the Churchill River adjacent to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They have discovered a unique, world-class, high-grade deposit of titanium, zircon, iron ore and some other heavy minerals. I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that this find, when compared to other deposits across the world of similar materials, is number one. It is the number one as far as richness, it is number one as far as location, the accessability of this mineral in the Churchill River. I am very happy to inform this House today that they have already signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Innu Nation and working with the Innu Nation to look at, on an ongoing basis, development of this. It is hoped that this particular mine, in the Churchill River, will be able to see production hopefully within the next three years. They are anticipating a life of this particular mineral discovery of between seventy and 100 years. We would start off, Mr. Speaker, with approximately fifty to 100 jobs at the initial startup. To date, there has been some very positive results from the environmental baseline study that has been done regarding this project. So I am looking forward to bringing down more good news on this project to this House as we move forward.

As we talk about this project, here is a another opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for us to work with the Innu Nation to further ensure that processing of this resource take place in Labrador and, indeed, take place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Certainly, we are looking to ensure the maximum benefits of this resource. Obviously, with opportunities from the Lower Churchill and cheap power, I am looking forward to working with the different departments of government as we explore the maximum opportunities from this world-class titanium and zircon resource.

I also understand that Markland Resources has made a presentation to the Economic Policy Committee of Cabinet, as well as - as I said earlier - the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So, this is a very exciting, positive project, Mr. Speaker, for my district and indeed, for Labrador and for the Province as a whole. I just, again, want to remind this hon. House and the people of the Province of the vast resources we have in Labrador and indeed, the richness of those resources that we have in Labrador. The fact that this is just another case of all of sudden we find something that is, again, world-class. A world-class deposit at Voisey's Bay, a world-class iron ore deposit in Labrador West and a world-class deposit now found adjacent to the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay by Markland Resources. We want to wish that company the very best as they move forward with that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a few minutes about 5 Wing Goose Bay because certainly 5 Wing Goose Bay, when it comes to the economy of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, is indeed the economic engine that drives the economy of Lake Melville. I want to say how pleased I am with the response of this government and, in particular, the response of the Premier who has taken every opportunity to bring the issues of 5 Wing Goose Bay into the forefront, both with the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, we are making progress. We have word now that the federal government is looking at some opportunities regarding 5 Wing Goose Bay - I have just been passed a note here - where we are now going through the environmental assessment regarding the chaff and flare, and it has been passed, I understand. So, this is very good news for 5 Wing Goose Bay. This has all gone through, the chaff and flare environmental assessment that was taking place. I will say that it looks very good for the future of 5 Wing Goose Bay, the fact that we have some 137,000 square kilometres of free air space to fly in. I do know that even today, representatives of Serco are moving into Gander to talk about medium-high level airspace so that we can give the allies and those who wish to fly at 5 Wing Goose Bay the very best training that they can get, indeed, in the Country of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about 5 Wing Goose Bay, we are talking about some great opportunities. It is a great opportunity for us because of the fact that we have a workforce that is second to none, a workforce that has trained with military operations, has supported foreign military operations.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe it is because of the efforts of Premier Williams and this government that we have finally gotten 5 Wing back on track, because I tell you from my previous experience, as the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay before I became elected as an MHA, we did not get any support from the previous Administration. I have to say, it is something that we have gotten back on track. Again, I just want to compliment and thank the Premier and the members of this government for the support that they have shown for 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about transportation, I want to spend a few minutes on transportation because transportation is a very important part of what is happening in Labrador, and to ensure that we get the infrastructure. I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, today, that Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway has started. It started both from the Cartwright end this year, as well as from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and work is ongoing as we speak to build the approach for the bridge across the Churchill River. I will say this: Once this road is finished to connect Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the opportunities for tourism both in Labrador and indeed this Province are going to be tremendous, Mr. Speaker. The people of Labrador are certainly looking forward to this as we move forward.

On a couple of other transportation fronts, over the years, of course, people on the North Coast of Labrador had an opportunity to complain about the fact that they had a problem with freight. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that under this Administration, and in particular Minister Rideout, the Minister of Transportation, we have been able to provide to the people of the North Coast of Labrador the very best freight service that they have seen in many, many years. I have gotten a lot of positive compliments from the people on the North Coast. The fact that now there was a cooler put on the Northern Ranger, there was certainly, when we look at the Bond - although the Bond is a boat that we would all like to see a new one, the fact of the matter is that hopefully within six years we will not need the Bond because the road will be completed and we will be able to drive. Until that time is done, we are working with that ship, through the department. I will say that next year we hope to have some more improvements to the Sir Robert Bond. I understand that next year we will see the opportunity for us to install a lift inside the ship to accommodate wheelchair accessibility, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the tourism industry picks up. It has been down throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed Atlantic Canada this year, and I am sure that will come back to Labrador as we move into the future.

We are doing good things, and I want to champion some of those here today and to remind the people of the Province, and indeed the people of my district in Labrador, that we are working hard to ensure that the issues of Labrador come to the forefront. There is still more work to do, no question, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about justice issues, and I am very happy to say to this House today that policing has been an issue both in my district and throughout Labrador, and I am happy to say that we have eleven new positions altogether. We look at positions on the North Coast with the RCMP, and eight of those positions, Mr. Speaker, will be in North West River and Sheshatshiu. Four of those members will live in North West River, four will live in Sheshatshiu, and that is going to provide us another level of policing service that we have not had for a long time. I am also happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that two of those members will be involved in the highway patrol between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls, as well as patrolling the road from Cartwright down on the South Coast and, of course, the highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and North West River.

I am also happy to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about transportation, that this government extended the extension of $20,000 to interim food, the air food lift subsidy program for Coastal Labrador, and that was because there was a need out there by businesses on the Coast of Labrador because of the issue of freight and the cost of freight. I am happy to say that we also saw, this year, an increase in passenger allocations, some fifteen more passenger vehicles for the Sir Robert Bond and, as I mentioned earlier, they added the cooler on the M/V Northern Ranger for the North Coast, allowing retail stores to carry out fresh fruits and vegetables on a regular basis.

Again on transportation, I want to say that we were happy to have Minister Rideout come to Northern Labrador and he did a great trip up there. He was in most of the communities, if not all of the communities, Mr. Speaker, in Northern Labrador. He toured these communities and met with the different officials and different councils and got their views on some of their issues. I must say I had a lot of positive feedback on Minister Rideout's trip to the North Coast. I will say that we also took the opportunity to trace out the route between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Cartwright on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

It has been a very busy summer, Mr. Speaker, and I think that as we move forward it will get busier, as we get into the fall and into the winter, on dealing with many issues affecting my district. Certainly the issue of the auditorium - and I know the Member for Torngat Mountains raised it earlier. I want to assure hon. members across the way that this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Lake Melville that his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I really am only just getting started here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

MR. HICKEY: I will close and I will say to you that, on the auditorium, every minister on this side of the House is informed about that decision. I want to thank the hon. Ed Byrne who brought it forward to the Cabinet. It is at Cabinet level now and certainly I am hoping to hear a positive response on that in the not too distant future.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the first of many times I hope to rise as a member of the House under this heading.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I remind members when they are speaking here that it is parliamentary to refer to members districts or the government position that they hold with a department as a minister, not to refer to them by name.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to talk to the Throne Speech as there is no other legislation before this House at this time, particularly the section as it relates to rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. In that Throne Speech the government opposite talked about what they were going to do for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They also talked about what they were going to do when they were campaigning a year ago, just prior to the election, that they had a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and that they were going to revitalize it because the government previous to them couldn't do anything with it. They had great plans and made great promises to the people of the Province, but in actual fact what we have seen since then - when I sat here just now and listened to the Member for Lake Melville, the Member from Goose Bay there, I cannot believe that we live in the same Province, because he talks about -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like for the member across the way to refer to the name Happy Valley-Goose Bay and not Goose Bay. The official name of the town is Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I would like to correct the member on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order. I refer to the Member of Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. Every time that I have risen in this House since this government came into power, we get these members oppose jumping up on these frivolous points of order that you always rule are no point of order. I guess, what they do not like to listen to is the truth.

As I was saying, the Member for Lake Melville, in listening to him I would swear that he lived in a different province in this country, because he talked about all the wonderful things that his government was doing for rural communities in our Province. Well, let me tell you, he must have the only one in the Province that this government is doing something for, because I certainly do not represent a town in my district that this government is doing anything to help. On the contrary, if you look at the cuts and the slashing and the burning that they have done in rural Newfoundland and Labrador since they took the government just a little over a year ago, it almost baffles the mind.

Just to mention a few: In my district, when campaigning during the election, they talked about eliminating ferry rates to the people of Fogo Island and Change Islands, and then just a few short months after being elected, not only did they not eliminate ferry rates, but they raised them by 25 per cent. They have closed social services offices, not only in my district but in some of their own as well. They have taken driver examiners from areas in the Province. Where it was very difficult for a young person to go and take a driver's test, where an examiner would come to his community, they have taken that away. I can go on with the list of the cuts that they have made to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am sure we will over the next few weeks before Christmas while this House is in sitting.

What I really want to talk about today, that directly ties into what this government is doing with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is what is happening today in Harbour Breton, as my colleague who represents that town so eloquently spoke about just a few minutes ago. What is happening to Harbour Breton is absolutely criminal in my mind, especially in light of what has happened with regard to FPI in the last two or three years since it had a new board of directors and since it put new management in place over here on O'Leary Avenue. What they are doing today flies directly in the face with what the government of today preached about FPI and what they said they would do with FPI when they were sitting here just a few short months ago.

 

Mr. Speaker, you were a member of an all-party committee that we struck to look into the affairs of FPI just a few short years ago. You also represent two communities in your district where FPI plants currently exist and operate. If I were you, I would be very concerned about the answers that your Fisheries Minister gave today in this House of Assembly. I would also be very, very weary about the inactivity, the lack of caring, the lack of any action, on behalf of the Premier or the Minister of Fisheries to deal with an issue that is of utmost importance to a whole region of this Province, and I am talking about the Connaigre Peninsula.

I can see why FPI are doing what they are doing, because they are taking a lead from a government that has absolute disdain for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, absolutely no caring for communities like Harbour Breton or Gaultois or Ramea or Bonavista or Port Union or any other rural community in this Province. When a government is cutting and slashing offices, when a government is reducing services, when a government is laying off government people in rural areas of this Province, why wouldn't FPI try to do the same thing? If the government is saying there is no hope of survival for these rural communities, why wouldn't FPI cut their losses in towns like Harbour Breton and Fortune and Marystown and everywhere else and say: We are following the lead of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and they have no faith in rural Newfoundland and Labrador therefore we should not either, and we should get out of here?

Mr. Speaker, back in the fall of 2001 FPI took on a new board of directors. At that time, as you know and members opposite know, they made commitments to the government. I was Minister of Fisheries at the time. They made commitments to the government and to the people, not only of the communities in which they had plants, but they also gave commitments to the general public of this Province that they would not close fish plants, they would not lay people off. In fact, what they were going to do is they were going to renovate and rebuild these fish plants, and rather than lay people off they were going to enhance employment opportunities in the communities in which they operated.

With those commitments, I, as Minister of Fisheries, told them, face-to-face and in writing, we will hold you to those commitments, and, Mr. Speaker, we did, because shortly after Christmas, in January of 2002, FPI went to the union and said: We will be restructuring the fishery, or their fishing operations in the community in which they operated, and they would be laying off approximately 700 people, I think, at the time, in three plants on the South Coast of our Province - Harbour Breton, Marystown and Fortune. At that time, today's Minister of Fisheries stood in the House of Assembly and issued a press release, on January 14, in which he said that he had discussions that morning with the mayor of Harbour Breton, with the mayor of Fortune and the mayor of Marystown. He assured those mayors and the people in those communities that a Tory party, a Tory government, would not accept layoffs at FPI unless the union and the employer negotiated layoffs.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what have we seen here today? When the Member who represents St. Anthony, the Northern Peninsula and The Straits asked the Minister of Fisheries in this House today, would they honour the commitment that they made two short years ago when they were in Opposition, to protect the jobs of those people in Harbour Breton and that general area, what was the answer? He did not have an answer, Mr. Speaker. I asked him what happened to him on his journey, that short distance from this side of the House to that side of the House, and why, today, he was not standing in this House and saying, we will hold FPI to the commitments that they made to the people of this district. Instead, Mr. Speaker, all he said is that we will work with the people and if we are able to do something we will and if we cannot we won't.

Mr. Speaker, he and his leader stood in this House a few short years ago and talked about how we were in the dark with regard to what was happening at FPI. We have a minister here today who told me that he did not even know that FPI was closing the plant in Harbour Breton until he heard about it in the paper on the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, I asked: Where has he and his Premier gone in twelve short months that they had since they entered government. The answer is that they have given up on communities in this Province, rural communities in this Province, and they just look to the urban areas. That is evident. If you look at the Cabinet that they have, most of the representatives, 80 or 90 per cent, represent the large urban areas of the Province and they have cast off any responsibility that they have for the rural areas of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening with FPI should be scary not only to you but for the Minister of Tourism and a number of people who sit on that side of the House who have plants that are owned and operated by FPI in their districts. If they get away with what they are doing in Harbour Breton, believe me towns like Marystown, Fortune, Bonavista, Port Union and others, Port au Choix in the district of the member across the floor, will also see it.

What is happening is that in the spring of this year FPI came forward with a proposal to government that they would be permitted to sell 40 per cent of their value-added and their marketing division that exists in the United States. Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows anything about the fishery will tell you that the marketing division of FPI and the secondary processing division that exists in Danvers, Massachusetts is what has kept FPI alive and profitable for the last ten or fifteen years, and without the marketing division and without the secondary processing division that currently exists in the United States that company will not survive as we know it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It scares me that when I asked the Premier what he was doing to prevent this sale back in May or June of this year, he stood in this House and said: because FPI is a private company, I am not at liberty to discuss the matter here in this House. Now, what a bunch of rubbish! What a bunch of rubbish! For one thing, FPI is not a private company. It is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, so it is a public company. The other thing about it, unlike any other company that exists in this Province today, FPI is governed by a piece of legislation that exists in this House of Assembly. It was established through legislation in this Assembly. It was established by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador back in the 1970s and 1980s, and to stand in the House and say that he cannot discuss what is happening with FPI with the people of this Province and more importantly, the people in this House who created FPI, as far as I am concerned is a sad scenario to have to sit here and listen to the Premier.

He did say back in June that he would be keeping a careful eye on the happenings of FPI. He would be watching the day-to-day occurrences and the happenings at FPI to make sure that what FPI did was to the benefit of the people of this Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, he must have kept his two eyes closed for the past six or eight months because what we see here is that FPI makes an announcement after dark on a Friday afternoon that they are closing a plant in Harbour Breton, laying off 400 people. It could have an indirect impact of another 400 jobs on the Connaigre Peninsula and the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier of this Province did not even know they were going to make the announcement. I think that is pitiful. I do not think the people of that area should stand for it, especially in light of the fact that the Premier gave the commitment here in this House that he would watch carefully what was happening in FPI. As far as I am concerned he dropped the ball, and as a result of that the people in that area, like the people in many other rural areas of this Province, will be and have been forgotten by this Premier and this government across the floor.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if Harbour Breton goes others will follow. Let me also tell you something, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe - I listened to the Premier on a radio program early this morning and he talked about FPI's restructuring plan and the fact that they may be selling 40 per cent of their marketing and value-added division of the United States. He was saying: Well, it is a very important issue and we are going to put the proposal before the House for a free vote. Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone in the Province knows that if there is, what he calls, a free vote, the members opposite, who make up the majority in this House, will stand and all vote in unison for whatever the Premier tells them to vote. That is evident. We have seen that happen for the past year. We know the Premier is a one-man show and there is only one person over there who had the audacity to stand up to him and say: No, Premier, you are doing this wrong. She no longer sits in his Cabinet. She is now the second closest to the door, as far away from the Premier as she could absolutely sit.

When our Justice critic, the Opposition House Leader, today asked the Minister of Justice about two legal opinions pertaining to the sale of these assets in the United States, the Minister of Justice looked at him and said: I do not think we can divulge that information to you. So, what the Premier is saying is that we should have a free vote in the House of Assembly on this sale of assets in the United States that are currently owned by FPI. We are going to have a free vote in the House of Assembly but he will not give us the information, the legal advice that the government has sought and obtained. He will not even allow us to look at that information so that we can make a legitimate vote in the House of Assembly. I am certain, if he is not going to give it to us, he will not give it to his backbenchers and his Cabinet. So, as far as I am concerned, the Premier's mind is already made up. He is going to let FPI sell off 40 per cent of their assets in the United States. He is going to let them close the plant in Harbour Breton and he will let them close whatever plant they feel they should close in this Province. Why? Because the Premier, like the Board of Directors of FPI, is a businessman and businesspeople, as we all know, do not think about the social factor. The businesspeople do not think about the individuals who are going home in Harbour Breton today who do not know where they are going to turn; people in their forties and fifties now being faced with the possibility of having to uproot and move to parts of this country that they have never visited, let alone work in.

Here is the Premier of the Province turning a blind eye to it, not paying any attention to what has been happening on the South Coast of this Province, not paying any attention, whatsoever, to what is happening with FPI and he is going to allow the current Board of Directors to strip that company of the very valuable assets that they have in the United States, assets that are required if FPI in this Province ever hopes to remain a viable company in this Province. Because anyone who has ever been involved in the fishing industry and closely tied to FPI will understand that without those important components of FPI, the marketing division and the value-added division, FPI will find it very difficult to exist in this Province with the resources that they currently have. That is evident with what is happening with Harbour Breton. For the minister to stand today and actually say to this House that if it is possible to find a solution, then we will; if it is not a viable solution, we will not be able to. In other words, if FPI can find something to do in Harbour Breton, so be it, those 400 people will have jobs. If they cannot, they can walk away.

Mr. Speaker, these same individuals who were saying today: Harbour Breton, you can stand or fall, were the same individuals who stood over here and told me, when I was Minister of Fisheries, that you should not allow FPI to lay off people. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that when we were in government and when I was the Minister of Fisheries, I stood behind the people of Harbour Breton, I stood behind the people of Marystown and I stood behind the people of Fortune and every other community in this Province that had a plant operated by FPI. I will tell you, I will continue to stand behind those people and we will continue to fight the fight for these people, even though the crowd opposite have no desire to help them out.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you. I will sit down so someone else can have a few words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, well, well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Surprise, surprise, surprise.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, surprise, surprise, surprise.

I listened to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo ask what happened to me when I walked the short distance across the floor. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what happened to him when he walked the short distance across the floor because when he sat on this side for a couple of years as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture he twiddled his thumbs and stood like a deer in the headlights. He did not know what to do. He tramped across the floor and all of a sudden he has all the answers.

He just read out something that I said in Question Period earlier today. If it is possible we will do something; if it is not, we will not. Well, Mr. Speaker, check the dictionary, I say to the member. If it is possible you will do something, if it is impossible you will not. If is impossible it cannot be done.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo on a point of order.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries said that all I did when I was Minister of Fisheries was sit around and twiddle my thumbs. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing, 400 people did not lose their jobs with FPI on my watch but you are doing absolutely nothing to prevent it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, 400 people may not have lost their jobs in Harbour Breton on his watch, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask the member this before he lets his memory slip too much: Where was he when Flower's Cove closed down? Where was he when Savage Cove closed, and Cook's Harbour, Green Island Cove, Green Island Brook, Raleigh, Ship Cove, Sandy Cove, Bide Arm, Trepassey, Gaultois, Ramea and Burgeo?

Do I need to continue, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Where was he then, Mr. Speaker, and who was the government? Mr. Speaker, no matter who the government is, there are circumstances many days that are beyond our collective control.

Mr. Speaker, who was the government when we saw the biggest layoff in Canadian history in this Province? They were the provincial government, Mr. Speaker. Where were they when 70,000 people uprooted and hauled out of this place over the past fifteen years? Where were they? They were sitting in government, Mr. Speaker. That is where they were. So, don't stand up here today and chastise me about something that has not happened yet. Don't tell me about what we are not going to do. I said we are going to work with the company, the union and the community, to try and find a solution, and if a solution is possible to be found we will find it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If a possible is not possible then it will not happen. Thus, the reference to the dictionary. Get out a dictionary and look up what impossible means. Impossible is, it cannot be done. Possible is, it can be done. If it can be done, we will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Just as the Member for Bellevue knows when we were in discussions last winter, when we were looking at Arnold's Cove - which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was sitting on the desk when I arrived down on Strawberry Marsh Road in the Petten Building last fall about this time. It sat there. It was sitting there - everybody knew - for two years just about at that point, that National Sea, Highliner, was pulling out of Arnold's Cove. It was just a matter of what day they were going to leave. It was well known that it was up for sale, and it was well known that if a sale was not found it was going to shut. Who was the minister then, Mr. Speaker? Who was the minister? The Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Did he find a creative way of solving the problem in Arnold's Cove?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. TAYLOR: No, I don't think so. No, he did not find a way, but we found a way, Mr. Speaker. It took us ten months to do it, but we found a way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I am reasonably confident in saying this, Mr. Speaker; I am reasonably confident that you will not hear the Member for Bellevue, you will not hear the people in Arnold's Cove, you will not hear the union executive in Arnold's Cove, you will not hear the Mayor of Arnold's Cove, or the Deputy Mayor of Arnold's Cove, or anybody else in that area, stand up and say that we do not care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Because the people of Arnold's Cove know, the people in Icewater Fisheries or Icewater Seafoods - I don't even know what it is called right now; it escapes me for the minute - but anyway Icewater in Arnold's Cove know that we found $3.5 million to purchase National Sea's Newfoundland and Labrador fish allocations to ensure that the people of Arnold's Cove were given a chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: We gave them a chance.

Mr. Speaker, can I stand here today and say that in a month's time or two months time or six months time or two years time, that Arnold's Cove will still be open? No, I would be a fool to do it, and I am no fool when it comes to that. I know that there are situations that are beyond our control and Bruce Wareham's control and the control of the people who work at the operation in Arnold's Cove. There are things that are called currency fluctuations. There are things called Chinese competition. There are issues around raw material procurement, where a couple of weeks ago cod on the world auction was trading at over $3,100 a metric ton, up from about $2,300 or $2,400 several years ago; when FPI, five years ago, thought that it was not viable to be producing frozen-at-sea cod here in Newfoundland and Labrador, when it was over $1,700 a ton.

Look around, I say to the members opposite. Look around and see who is still at frozen-at-sea cod in Newfoundland and Labrador. There were quite a few, a few years ago. Port aux Basques was running on it. Woodman's in New Harbour was running on it part of the time. National Sea was. FPI was running in some places. Barry's was doing some in Dover. I do not know where else, right off hand, but those are just a few. Who is at it today? Bruce Wareham is still plodding on, trying to make it work with the best groundfish facility in the world, with a new state-of-the-art piece of technology that was just put in a couple of weeks ago, a pin bone removal machine, the first one in the world. Mr. Speaker, he is at it and he is only able to continue on at it because of the investments they have made over the years.

FPI is still at it, to some extent. Where is everybody else? Is anybody else at it? No, not a soul. Nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador is at frozen-at-sea cod today. Why? Because they cannot control the Canadian dollar, they cannot control the world market on cod, they cannot control the Chinese, believe it or not, so things happen. We run into trouble along the way, just as we ran into it in the early nineties when the groundfish collapsed, and that situation, that collapse, haunts us today in Harbour Breton just as it haunts us on the Northern Peninsula and in Labrador and along the Northeast Coast and in Trepassey and Gaultois - and need I continue.

There is no quick solution, there is no easy solution, but to listen to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo get up here on his high horse today and tell me and tell us and try and tell the people of this Province that he is the champion of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that they were the champions of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and question our motives and our intent, after just investing $3.5 million to give Arnold's Cove a chance, after just announcing three weeks ago, on November 2, an aquaculture fin fish loan guarantee initiative that specifically, right in the short term, deals with only one district in this Province, the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. That is the district that it deals with. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is hardly the sign of a government who is caught up in political short-sightedness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If we were, Mr. Speaker, like the former - if our department and our government was like the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I can guarantee you that any major initiative like we did in Bellevue district, which is a Liberal district, and in Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune on aquaculture, which is a Liberal district, would not have happened, Mr. Speaker, would not have happened!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If I need to say anything more, if I need to point any further- I do not think I need to point any further than what happened in the fall of 2001 when a shrimp licence was issued and a crab licence was reactivated in Twillingate at the same time that the minister of the day said no to the people of St. Anthony. I do not need to go much further than that, I don't think, to point to a little bit of evidence. A decision that just three, four, or five weeks ago, the judges, the Supreme Court Judges here in the Province, three of them, unanimously said that former minister, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, was patently unreasonable in his decision.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that they will not be able to say that our decisions have been patently unreasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker - or Madam Speaker, I apologize - Madam Speaker, what are we doing as it relates to Harbour Breton and FPI? As I said, we are asking questions. We are searching for answers. We are searching for solutions. We are trying to find a way forward. Will we find a way forward? I do not know; I honestly do not. It is going to be tough. It is not going to be easy. There is no short term, no quick, no ready answer for the people of Harbour Breton - and that is not what they are going to want to hear today, and I understand that - just as there is no simple, short, quick fix for many other parts of this Province. We are trying to find a reasonable way, one that is economically sound, one that is based on survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where the solution lies. What that solution is I don't know right now, but that is where it lies.

In order for any company, any community, any individual, to be able to survive in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they have got to be able to make money. That is the bottom line. You can say: Oh, that is just a business approach. No, it is not a business approach, it is a fact of life. None of us can survive without money, to be able to take in more money that we spend, or at least as much as we spend, or something close to it. That is where the problem is. If we go beyond that, then we get into trouble.

Mr. Speaker, I don't need to talk much more on this, I don't think. The bottom line is there is an approach that we are taking with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as much as I can say, as well as I can articulate that. It is an approach that makes sense, that is reasonable, that is rationale, that gives people decent paying jobs at the end of the day, that allows companies to make money, that survives, that supports strategic communities and regions, looks at it from a regional approach. That is what we are looking at.

You know, I listened to countless days of criticism over the past number of months, from Gaultois, for example. I will bring it up myself here, about Gaultois, because I didn't reissue a crab license in Gaultois that was inactive since 1998, based on a recommendation by Eric Dunne in the Dunne Report, that all inactive crab and shrimp licenses be cancelled. Why? I know what the other government would have done, the previous administration. They would say: Ah, give them the license, boy. They are not going to do anything with it anyway. Don't tell them the truth. It is easier if you don't have to confront the cruel hard facts. It is easier to duck and hide. It is easier for a minister to take the easy way out. I never was big on taking the easy way out. Perhaps that is the reason I stuck with the fishery for so long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, our plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not based as I saw in some of the actions of the previous administration. It is not a palliative care approach to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What I mean when I say a palliative care, it is give them enough to keep them comfortable until they die, because that was the approach of the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Fire a little bit of money here and a little bit of money there, keep propping up places on make-work projects and false hope. That was the approach that I saw in a lot of places.

Mr. Speaker, just because you change an approach does not mean that you abandon an area or communities or rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If we were abandoning rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we certainly, as it relates to the Connaigre Peninsula, would not have announced an aquaculture loan guarantee initiative for feed financing. That, I believe, was a bold initiative and, certainly, the Aquaculture Industry Association believes it was a bold initiative. I do not see the last Administration do that. No, no, no, no, they did not do that. I do not know why. I do not know if they were scared to take the chance, they did not recognize the potential in aquaculture, or what it was.

Madam Speaker, as I said, there is only one way we are going to move forward in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and in Newfoundland and Labrador in general, and it is, first of all, by being honest and up-front and truthful with the people, telling them what the challenges are, telling them where you believe the opportunities lie and working with them to try and achieve some success. That is the approach we are taking, that is what we are trying to do, we are trying to work with the people. That is what we did in Arnold's Cove, that is what we did with the Aquaculture Association, and that is what we are going to do in Harbour Breton. In some cases we will have success and in some cases we will not. We have been fortunate enough to have some success in two and I cannot guarantee that we will have it in third but I hope we will. I can guarantee you one thing, if we do not have success it will not be because I haven't had interest enough to ask questions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the issue that the Fisheries Minister has just spoken on, I have every confidence in the minister that he is going to make every effort to do something with the fishery. With the issue with Harbour Breton, I have every confidence that the minister will do everything possible to try to solve that, and he has mentioned that.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk also to this thing that happened over the last number of months, since we have gotten elected as a government, and all the issues that have come forth in this hon. House. Madam Speaker, in my own district, the District of Mount Pearl, there have been a lot of things going on in that district. As a member, I am very, very proud to represent that district and also very proud that I have attended many, many functions that happened in that district. I have visited schools, talked to children and talked to them about the vision of this government. There are a lot of other things that have gone on over the last twelve months with winter carnival - that is coming up again in February - and also our Mount Pearl City Days which have been very productive and very, very interesting to attend. It has come to a point, Madam Speaker, that it is getting beyond what we have dreamed of and getting better and better every year.

I have attended many graduations in the City of Mount Pearl, high school graduations, and wished all of the graduates all the best in their future endeavors. Also, Madam Speaker, over the last twelve months I have had continuous contact with the council and worked very, very closely with their concerns and their issues in the City of Mount Pearl. Just recently, we also acknowledge the fact that we had a $1 million project of Capital Works within the City of Mount Pearl, 50 per cent from the Municipal Affairs of government and 50 per cent from council. They are very pleased with that contribution.

Madam Speaker, we talk about division also of this government. We were elected just over twelve months ago, but we were elected with a major, major fiscal responsibility. We had a major debt that was incurred by the previous administrations, all Liberal, and that debt became totally unmanageable. We had to put in things that we needed to put in place to correct that, to make sure that the road that we were going down that we had to look out for our fiscal responsibility of our people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, when we look at some of the accomplishments of this government over the last twelve months, they are very, very significant. We took initiative and one initiative was to put $5.3 million back into the pockets of those who were in need the most, low income earners, families, individuals, including senior citizens with income tax relief. That gave, Madam Speaker, $5.3 million back into the economy which those people, the people of low income earners and so on, desperately needed. That is a commitment of this government.

Madam Speaker, we also looked at the child benefit, increased the index of child benefit, mother/baby nutrition supplement. Just recently, we announced an initiative of home heating rebate to low income earners and seniors, those people who are in need because or the rising cost of fuel. That exceeded any rebate of the previous Administrations. It also exceeded the commitment of us as a government in our Blue Book, double that of what happened in previous years. I am very, very proud of that. The thing about that, Madam Speaker, is that we acted not only at the end of the winter months, we acted before the winter months are coming into effect. So the people know up-front. It is now advertised in all publications of Newfoundland and Labrador where the people can go and look at the home fuel income rebate. That is what they need - proactive approaches.

When this government was in Opposition the rhetoric had to go back and forth in January and February when people were in desperate need of rebates. Then they finally came to their senses. Madam Speaker, we did a proactive thing, we did it now prior to the cold months starting.

Madam Speaker, we also looked at long-term facilities for Corner Brook, an MRI machine for Corner Brook, and also at our commitment to the seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador by setting up a - what is the name of it - the department of aging. That is a very significant thing that we promised in our Blue Book and we are following through on.

If you look at the demographics of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, things are changing drastically. We need to put a vision in for our seniors. Each one of us today are getting older day by day and we will become seniors. We need to put a safety net in for our seniors. That is looked at by health care and community services and done under the auspices of the minister. We have also put $200,000 into that to move it forward, to make sure it happens and to make sure the necessary resources are there to make it happen.

Madam Speaker, we also looked at a number of initiatives with regard to Human Resources, Labour and Employment. Last year, because of the fiscal restraints we had, we were strapped to what we could do. Our ability to do things was strapped drastically, but we did come up with a number of initiatives. We did come up with $400,000, Madam Speaker, for supported employment. That, in itself, was very well received by the twenty groups throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. They are very appreciative of that. That was something that we did because we had a vision that this is something that we need to do to create employment for people with disabilities. That is a very important thing that we did.

We also looked at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: No.

Also, Madam Speaker, with all the things that we were strapped with, we did manage to come up with a lot of things. Also, Madam Speaker, over the last summer we created 1,200 jobs for students during the summer, the SWASP program, 1,200 of them, and we made sure that every cent that was to go into that SWASP program was availed of and capitalized upon with every cent. That made it, for the students who were going to university, a little bit easier on them when they had to pay for their tuition; and, by the way, on the tuition, we did freeze the tuition for 2004 and 2005.

Madam Speaker, I want to go now to the Atlantic Accord, some of the things that we did on the Atlantic Accord. The Opposition over there are saying a few words there now but they were on our side up to a point. Up to a point they were on our side, and then all of a sudden they had to make a little bit of distance between us. They were saying, well, let's make a statement. They wanted an emergency debate today, the day before the federal minister and the high officials coming down to Newfoundland and Labrador to hopefully seal a deal, more talks. They wanted now to come onside.

Now, Madam Speaker, they had an opportunity in Gander three weeks ago to make a big statement. They had an opportunity in Gander three weeks ago to make a statement but they did not. Every picture you saw was hugs and kisses. They are all on one side, and then the hammer was delivered on Monday morning on Open Line when the Leader of the Opposition put the nails in the coffin of Mr. Efford. He supported him all weekend but he could not support him any longer. He said how foolish he was to go across this Province to promote the deal of October 24. He could not take it.

Madam Speaker, this government has shown leadership, and has shown leadership in many, many things. The Atlantic Accord, between the Premier and Mr. Sullivan, they have gone to Ottawa on many, many occasions and held steadfast in their commitment to this Province that there will be no more giveaways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Madam Speaker, we do not have a video tape. We do not have our brochures done up, as was done up on some deal; I think it was the Churchill Falls deal. We do not have a video tape done up with the Premier addressing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier will be there tomorrow, and our officials, with Minister Sullivan, to help iron out a deal, but we will take no less - no less - than 100 per cent that was promised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Now, of all of this that has happened, I want to give kudos to a couple of people, the federal members for Newfoundland and Labrador, our two people who represent the Conservative Party: Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle. They have done a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Madam Speaker, they have put the Atlantic Accord on the Table of the House of Commons.

AN HON. MEMBER: And kept it there.

MR. DENINE: And kept it there and made excellent points, and had the Conservative Party of Canada back them 100 per cent. I cannot say that for the Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: The Liberal Party had, I think, three members support it: Mr. Matthews, Mr. Simms, and - that was it, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: There were two.

MR. DENINE: There were two. One gentleman was absent because of sickness. That is understandable. Mr. O'Brien was sick and could not attend, and that is more than acceptable, but there were two members - the member for the West Coast and the member for the Avalon - who did not support us, did not support the intent of that motion.

Madam Speaker, this government here sees vision. We see vision in the Atlantic Accord. As the Premier stated, whether or not this will be done tomorrow, will be done the next day, or whatever, we will hold steadfast in getting 100 per cent of what we were promised.

Madam Speaker, that is my little spiel on the Atlantic Accord because tomorrow there is going to be some on that. The Leader of the Opposition - well, if he had to come onside long ago with his 100 per cent support, not his 50 per cent, but 100 per cent support for our position, he would not have had to ask for leave of this House of Assembly today to debate the issues.

Madam Speaker, the accomplishments of this government over twelve months certainly speaks for the vision. I said in this House, this House here, Madam Speaker, that in tough times it takes real leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: - and this party, under Premier Williams, has shown leadership and has taken the bull by the horns and we are going to put that on the table to the people who come tomorrow to negotiate the contract of the Atlantic Accord. We will take no less, Madam Minister, than 100 per cent. No less!

Now, all of them are talking over there now. I wish they were doing a lot of talking prior to coming into this House today and getting out and supporting us 100 per cent rather than waffling.

Madam Speaker, all of these things that we have done are done under restraint and because of the things that we are hard strapped for or because of the previous Administration, the mismanagement that was going on.

Now, for Labrador; the hon. Member for Lake Melville pointed out the commitment, also to Labrador, of this government. This Premier has gone on record with the 5 Wing Goose Bay, has gone to the Prime Minister on the 5 Wing Goose Bay, has gone to Europe on the 5 Wing Goose Bay to try to secure the future of 5 Wing Goose Bay. He has made a commitment. This previous summer, the Premier and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment went to the coast to see firsthand what was happening on the Coast of Labrador. That was appreciated by the Member for Torngat; very much appreciated. The Premier came back - and there will be some initiatives taken because of that trip and there will be some positive things coming out of it. So, Madam Speaker, I can also assure the people of Labrador that their issues have not gone unnoticed.

Madam Speaker, we talk about the Rural Secretariat. I attended the conference that was held in Terra Nova National Park where all of the stakeholders came forward to give their opinion of what they would like to see and where -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DENINE: Madam Speaker, I cannot hear myself speak. To the Member for L'Anse au Clair, I cannot hear. I gave her the courtesy of listening to her when she speaks, but she is not giving me the courtesy.

When I went to the Rural Secretariat there were stakeholders there who gave their input on how they would see the rural development of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the first step to bring the stakeholders together, to come with a solution to what we vision rural Newfoundland and Labrador to become part of. That was, to me, very, very productive. A lot of people came in, gave their ideas, and now it is going to be put into practice. That was our commitment to rural Newfoundland.

Everyone of the members over there say we have no commitment. We do have commitment and we will show it. We will not give it lip service. We will do it, but we will not be doing short-term things that were done by the previous Administration; just throw a dollar here, $2 dollars there or whatever the case may be, or thousands and millions to keep it going. We are going to put some real substance to this, real substance to a vision of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, the other issue that we have taken is the paper on post-secondary studies. This is a very important paper. Under Dr. Wayne Ludlow that report should come shortly. That is coming shortly, Madam Speaker, but what it is going to do is outline what this government is going to do for students in post-secondary institutions.

All these rumours that they are talking about, Madam Speaker, that is all it is, it is just politicalizing this good initiative by this government.

Our future, we talked about Voisey's Bay. We talked about the Atlantic Accord but we must do things for our youth in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need that.

Madam Speaker, also the offshore will provide many, many opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador in the future. The Minister of Natural Resources has spoken many times on the viability of the offshore. That is something that we look forward to, to bring more revenues into the Province, into the coffers, so that we are able to put it out into areas which would be more productive and solidify, not only the urban areas, but also the rural areas.

Madam Speaker, we are also going to make sure that the Voisey's Bay deal is lived up to the word. We did not sign that deal. That is a deal we will live up to because it is a signed agreement. We did not have a video tape of addressing that. We do not have that made up.

In the Lower Churchill, they had everything done until someone - when we were in Opposition, we were the major driving force of putting a stop to it, because what has happened in the past is that -

MR. E. BYRNE: Was there a deal or wasn't there a deal?

MR. DENINE: Well, we don't know. Was there a deal or was not there a deal?

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the member's time has expired.

MR. DENINE: Just leave to wrap up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to wrap up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

The Chair recognizes another speaker. The Chair has no member standing.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you very much.

I am going to have to start getting a stool because that is three times I have stood in the House this afternoon, and apparently I was not seen by the Chair.

Anyway, I wanted to rise today and have a couple of comments. I guess to start off a little bit where my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl, was ending on because he got up and wanted to talk about leadership. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no problem talking about leadership when it comes to that side of the House, because I was here, I was in this House, I was witness in this Province to the lead role that the government opposite took in slashing 4,000 jobs in the public service in Newfoundland and Labrador, jobs that we are still seeing cut, and layoffs today, and people leaving the public service.

Mr. Speaker, they took a leadership role as well when they went out and closed down twenty HRE offices in this Province. The hon. member stood in his place today and talked about how they are reshaping programs under Human Resources and Employment, but what he failed to tell the people of this Province is that they also cut twenty offices. They removed the service from the rural residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. People in places like François today cannot access services in Burgeo any more; they have to go to Port aux Basques to be able to do it, and Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of leadership that they have shown in HRE inasmuch as I have seen so far.

Then they took a leadership, Mr. Speaker, with regard to education in this Province, where they went out and cut the number of education boards, and cut out and eliminated offices in regions of the Province, and laid people off, and now they removed the structure of the board process so far from people in rural areas that you hardly know what is going on anymore. I can testify to that because I am one of those districts; one of those districts that does not even have representation on the new school board simply because the one lone member that they did appoint from my district is working in the Province of Quebec, living in the Province of Quebec, but appointed as a school board representative from my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. That is one of the initiatives that they took a lead on, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the initiatives, one that right now when the board is sitting around contemplating where teachers are based and what curriculum is provided and where high schools will stay open, in my district there is no one at the table to speak for us. We do not have a voice there, Mr. Speaker. That is what they did. When they eliminated the school board on the Northern Peninsula and hauled up its roots over there and put it down in Corner Brook, they also eliminated to look at who was going to represent the rest of the people that had been served by the Northern Peninsula board.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you another thing that they took a lead role on: health care. They have taken a lead role on health care, Mr. Speaker. They have restructured the health boards in this Province so much that the entire system is almost in chaos out there right now. We are waiting to have boards appointed. We are waiting to have CEOs hired. We are amalgamating services and the boards themselves will tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do not know what employees are going to be left, what programs are going to be operated from one board to the other board, how far people will have to go to access services; and, in addition to that, in taking this great leadership of amalgamating the health boards, they left them with millions of dollars in debt, Mr. Speaker, that now they are refusing to pay. Now they are refusing to pay.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, they are telling these new boards that are not even in place yet, because we do not know who they are going to be, and these new CEOs that are going to walk into these jobs, that not only do they have to take on the massive undertaking of amalgamating all of these boards and delivering services but they have to do it with less money because they have to pay down the accumulated debt that is on their books, over a period of time. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing as a fresh start and giving these boards an opportunity to be able to have their debt taken care of, and looking at a sensible delivery.

Let's talk about how they took the leadership on increasing the ferry rates in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That was in their campaign. In their campaign they said: We are going to reduce ferry rates in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to reduce the rates that people have to pay to access transportation service in these rural and isolation regions. What do they do? They did not reduce the ferry rates. They did not even freeze the ferry rates. They actually went out and they increased the ferry rates. That was what they did, after making a commitment, a promise, a pledge in the middle of a campaign that they would not do that, that in fact they would reduce it and they would make it more affordable for people who lived in those areas. Was that what they did? No. When the Member for Mount Pearl talked about great leadership on that side of the House, that was one of their great leadership initiatives, increasing the rates for ferries in this Province.

One of their latest great leadership pieces was in closing the courthouses across this Province. In the middle of this passionate debate on the Atlantic Accord, when all eyes were focused to doing a good deal with Ottawa and bringing home some wealth for this Province, when all the people were out there rallying behind the Premier on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to try and do this Accord, they were out there, Mr. Speaker, in the midst of all of this hoopla, pushing through the closure of courthouses in the Province. I could not believe it. I looked at the list. Every one of these courthouses in rural Newfoundland, that is where they were being closed. That is the leadership that they took there.

The member talked about how they have frozen tuition rates, something that we did when we were the government because we had seen the real need in doing it. What he failed to tell you was the leadership role they took in reducing the budget for Memorial University in the past year by $2 million. He did not mention that. That was one of their leadership initiatives as well.

He also failed to talk about the leadership they took on cancelling things like the cancer clinic in Grand Falls, like the hospital in Burin. That was some leadership piece they took when they told parents in this Province that they would not pay the school fees. That was one of their leadership pieces, when they refused to do that.

When they refused the drugs to the Alzheimer's patients in the Province, that was one of their great leadership pieces; but, Mr. Speaker, one of their greatest leadership pieces was in reforming transportation in Labrador. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, if there was ever misery brought on people because of government policy, it was done when the crowd opposite reformed the marine transportation services in Labrador. It reeked only misery and poverty in a rural district in this Province, and I can guarantee you that is nothing to be proud of in terms of leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on about that for some time but I know it is getting near the end of the day and I will take the opportunity now to close debate for today, but I will be back to speak further on the Throne Speech in the days to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It being 5:30 p.m. on the first day it is open, I move that the House do now adjourn and return tomorrow at 1:30 p.m., as my former Government House Leader used to say, of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 23, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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