March 23, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 6


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome to the visitor's gallery five Level II and Level III students from Basque Memorial School in the picturesque and beautiful community of Red Bay, Labrador. They are accompanied by their teacher, Thattan Higgins and by recently retired school Principal, Mr. Tom Mahoney. Of course, these students are from the wonderful District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Welcome to the people's House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: We have members' statements today from the following members: from the District of Exploits; from the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; from the hon. Member for the District of Grand Falls- Buchans; and from the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

We will go to the hon. Member for the District of Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery of three young people from the Town of Bishop's Falls in the District of Exploits. Mr. Speaker, Kevin Reid, Casey Murphy and Keith Budgell, all were recently acknowledged for their acts of tremendous courage and bravery.

Mr. Kevin Reid received the Medal of Bravery from Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson at Rideau Hall on February 7. The award was given for Mr. Reid's efforts to save a drowning friend at Cornfield Lake near Grand Falls-Windsor in 2003. Miss Casey Murphy and Mr. Keith Budgell also received commendations for bravery for their actions during the same tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, this Medal for Bravery was established in 1972 as part of the Canadian Honour System. The Medal is awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances. All three young people were nominated for these awards by the Town Council of Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me today in recognizing the bravery of these three outstanding young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the exceptional efforts of two individuals from the District of Bonavista North who have made tremendous contributions to the preservation of our culture and history. Ruby and Heath Ellis are the proprietors of the Winsor House Heritage Inn, located in the historic community of Wesleyville. The couple has recently received the 2005 Orchid Award, presented by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, for their achievements associated with the restoration of their historic property.

These Orchid Award recipients have demonstrated the importance of esthetics by highlighting the areas natural and cultural surroundings. In 2004, the couple received the prestigious Southcott Award, presented by the Newfoundland Historic Trust. These awards are clear indications of the level of excellence that has already been achieved as a result of their hard work and dedication.

In 1905, Captain William Winsor, one of Newfoundland's most prominent sealing captains hired Master Shipbuilder Arthur Gillingham to construct this home in Wesleyville. Once completed, the house rivaled the very finest merchant homes in St. John's. Through the years the Winsor house served as an important landmark for mariners approaching Wesleyville.

As years went on, struggles in the fishery were reflected in this once great building and it eventually fell into a state of disrepair, becoming merely a shadow of its former self. Ruby and Heath Ellis realized that we were at risk of losing this important part of our heritage, and decided to purchase the building. Through their tireless efforts, the Windsor Home has been restored to its former Victorian grandeur and, in the process, Ruby and Heath have created one of the Island's finest bed and breakfast establishments. Individuals such as Ruby and Heath play a vital role in preserving our heritage and advancing the tourism potential of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Once again, I congratulate them on their accomplishments and thank them for their dedication to the preservation of our culture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Grand Falls-Windsor Sparkling Blades Figure Skating Club, synchronized skaters who captured the gold medal in the pre-novice category at the Skate Newfoundland and Labrador Festival of Synchronized Skating which was held at the Glacier in Mount Pearl on January 28 to January 29, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing when you consider that at last year's competition this team that had never performed synchronized skating before were presented a bronze medal for their performance. In the year since then, they have excelled to the top of their class with this year's gold medal win. This significant achievement speaks highly of the hard work and dedication by the team who, under the direction of coach Carol Foote, have no doubt spent many hours practicing and perfecting their act in order to perform at this level. They have all demonstrated the skills and qualities that will guarantee them a bright future in synchronized figure skating.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Sparkling Blades Figure Skating Club synchronized skating team and wish them all the greatest success in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to honour the Town of Bay Roberts, who is the winner of the 2004-2005 edition of Winter Lights Celebration, a national competition, in the population category of from 5,000 to 10,000. The community was recognized for the illumination parade which took place during their festival of lights with over 2,000 people in attendance.

The town and the special events committee did an outstanding job promoting their community to its citizens and to the adjacent towns. The judges who assessed Bay Roberts were astounded with the town's involvement at all levels within the community. During December, the judges assessed the communities competing on their decorations, visual presentation and lighting displays, along with the festive and wintertime activities engaged by each community. Such great pride, along with a feeling of community accomplishments, was pleasantly observed. I am proud to mention that the whole community excelled in all criteria, including the festival celebration, winter pleasures, and visual presentation.

I would also like to mention that, even though it is not in my district, Cow Head also won the same award for the population up to 1,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Town of Bay Roberts and all those who volunteered their time in promoting their community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: I rise today to acknowledge the Province's Youth Advisory Committee and congratulate them on the completion of their annual report, "Right Here Right Now". The Premier and I had a very informative meeting yesterday with several committee members as they walked us through some of the key aspects of the report.

Mr. Speaker, the Youth Advisory Committee was established to give youth a direct voice to government. Since its inception in 2001, this committee has provided government with valuable feedback and advice on how programs and policies can best meet the needs of the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to commend all members of the committee for their ongoing insight, expertise and sense of community responsibility.

As outlined in their annual report, this has been another busy and exciting year for the committee. They held regional meetings in Gander, St. John's and Gros Morne, and visited with local groups across the Province to discuss topics of mutual interest.

Mr. Speaker, the Youth Advisory Committee's Annual Report includes a number of recommendations in program and policy development. These recommendations include such areas as alternate education, supportive services, healthy lifestyles, youth employment and affordable post-secondary education.

I would like to thank the committee for their recommendations. My department and my colleagues in government are currently reviewing these in an effort to ensure our policies and programs meet the needs of our young population.

Mr. Speaker, we hold our many partnerships with community groups and organizations in high regard. They ensure we, as a government, continue to offer and develop programs and supports that reflect the priorities of the people we serve. I look forward to our continued partnership with the Youth Advisory Committee in addressing the needs, concerns and challenges of our young population.

I invite all members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to take some time to review the Youth Advisory Committee's Annual Report. It provides an opportunity to learn first-hand the priorities of our young population. However, most of all, it is a great example of a productive and valuable collaboration between government and our youth.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement and to say that we, on this side of the hon. House, also want to congratulate the Youth Advisory Committee on the completion of this year's annual report.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that since its inception in 2001, the former Administration also gave their blessings to the wonderful work that this committee has done. It is good to see that they did travel throughout the Province and they have been very active meeting with other groups.

I look forward to reading the report, as the minister has stated, and sizing up and paying attention to the recommendations they have put forward. I hope the government of the day - and I am sure they will - will pay particular attention to, when we mention here, youth employment, to make sure that out-migration, which seems to be on the increase again, is adhered to so that those young people, when they find the job that they are looking for, they can go to work right here in this Province.

Once again, I want to thank the minister for a copy of the statement, and to wish the committee every success in its future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to acknowledge the work of the Youth Advisory Committee and congratulate them on their work in advising government on priorities for young people in the Province. I look forward to reading the annual report, and the recommendations.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this minister and her government will listen to those recommendations in a better way than they did to the women's lobby and the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, who are none too pleased with this government's failure to recognize the role of women centres in the Province, and the need to have the resources to carry out equality in advocacy work in the Province. I hope that this Minister Responsible for the Status of Women will also listen to the recommendations and follow them, and not just leave them to one side.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that a project intended to explore the commercial growth potential of potatoes in Labrador will take place starting this year in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area.

Recently, the Department of Natural Resources carried out a selection process to identify a qualified producer to undertake the pilot potato project following a Call for Expressions of Interest. I am pleased to announce today that the successful proponent is Day Break Farms of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The potato crop will be planted in June at a research field using standard potato production practices. Potatoes will be harvested in years two, three and four of the project.

Mr. Speaker, this project is a prime example of how the recently implemented Northern Agrifoods Strategy is being used to assess the growth potential of the agricultural industry in Labrador. Funding for this initiative has been provided through the federal-provincial Agricultural Policy Framework Agreement in the amount of $63,000.

The potato project will help us enhance the viability of food production in the region. At the end of this project, we hope we will have made progress in determining the best techniques and practices required to produce commercial yields of quality potatoes in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, both for local consumption and export. By conducting a research and development project into the potential of establishing quality potato crops in Labrador, this government is demonstrating its commitment to enhance the agrifoods industry and its economic benefits, not only in the Province but particularly throughout Labrador. We have also moved forward to make available suitable land for agricultural development, and we have provided funding, outside the APF, for the necessary equipment required to develop the unique agricultural land base in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives of the Northern Agrifoods Development Strategy is to set out some long-term strategic actions to advance the agriculture and agrifoods industry in Labrador. In considering the unique needs of Labrador, the unique soils in Labrador, we have developed within the Agricultural Policy Framework Agreement an initiative entitled the Northern Agrifoods Initiative. Approximately $1.5 million, at a minimum, Mr. Speaker, has been set aside to encourage and support the implementation of the strategy and to encourage the development, diversification and commercialization of the northern agrifoods industry. There is much flexibility in this initiative to address the unique agricultural development needs within Labrador.

This funding will be targeted to encourage growth, diversification and commercialization of livestock, crops, fruits, native berries, human resource development, marketing and various food initiatives. Funding will also encourage further processing, secondary processing, and more value-added products.

I encourage the producers in Labrador to seek out opportunities for funding through the Northern Agrifoods Initiative. I look forward to continuing to work with the Lake Melville Agricultural Association, Mr. Speaker. Government will continue to work with the industry in Labrador to ensure we take advantage of the opportunities for growth in the agricultural sector.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to thank the minister for an advance copy.

Aside from the initiative taken, I see something interesting there, a call for expressions of interest, which I am glad the minister is responsible for, because the last two we had, the VON and the feel-good ads, were just given on someone's buddy. I am glad the minister was responsible and put this out properly.

As for the program itself, I commend the minister and the government. It is a good program, it is a great program. I think it is an initiative that will hopefully help rural Newfoundland and Labrador, not just Labrador but the whole of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an initiative, I say to the minister, that is going to take two to three to four years to get the final results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: It may take awhile to get the results, but if this is the kind of steps that we must take to try to grow rural Newfoundland and Labrador - as we know, the out-migration is going out every year. With initiatives like this here, if we can expand on these initiatives and expand Newfoundland and Labrador it would help Newfoundland and Labrador, help rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I commend the government and the minister for taking this initiative.

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. I just want to say that there are many private gardens now in Labrador that grow, very successfully, a wide variety of vegetables. I know in my area of Labrador West there is what we call community gardens, where many people in the community go to a certain area and grow their own vegetables for their own use. I believe it is possible to have a commercial operation within the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, and possibly other areas of Labrador as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to pay attention because I do have a question for the minister on this statement. What I would like for the minister to answer - I do not know if he is a bit skeptical or not, and I certainly do not pretend to be a farmer, but the last two sentences in the second paragraph says: "The potato crop will be planted in June at a research field..." - I understand the word research - "... using standard potato production practices." And, potatoes are going to be harvested in years two, three and four.

There is probably a legitimate reason, but like I said, I am not a farmer and I would be very interested in understanding how that would work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: May I ask leave of the House to enlighten my colleague what farming techniques are? Do I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Government House Leader have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague and good friend from Labrador West has admitted that he is not a farmer, and there is a very valid reason for that. The soils in Labrador are very sandy and unique, so what needs to happen first is what we call a green manure project where we plant and try to put some nutrients back into the soil in year one so that in year two, three and four we can grow those potatoes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night on an Open Line program the Premier referred to the cancer treatment clinic in Central Newfoundland and said, and these are his words: There was just not enough funds do it, Linda. I ask the Premier today, are there funds actually available for this clinic or is the visit next week by the Health Minister just another charade?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the previous government, there are no charades with this government. When we go out, we go out to do business and accomplish business and achieve results, like we have already proven to the rest of the Province.

With regard to the cancer clinic and available funds, it is interesting that the former Premier of the Province, the Leader of the Opposition, is now talking about allocations for cancer funds. The day before the Budget was delivered there is an article that appears in The Independent, where he is looking for a review of the members' salaries. That was your priority a day before the Budget and now your priority is the cancer clinic in Grand Falls. It is interesting how you can switch around.

Now, having said that, I will deal with the question. A review of your own salary after sixteen years, that was the issue that was of importance to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is right there. There is your face. People around the Province recognize it from many ad campaigns.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to caution the Premier about using displays in the House. There is a rule against using displays, and I ask him to refrain from that. I would ask him if he will complete his answer to the question now.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: To hear, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition was listening to me on Open Line last night, because it is a very, very important issue. I have indicated previously that the issue of cancer is an issue that is very dear to my heart because we lost a family member within the last two weeks to cancer. So, it is something that I am very concerned about.

With regard to the funds that have been allocated, the minister is going out next week to have a look at this firsthand. There is an issue here of the amount of money that was going to be expended. There is a question here of some $4 million, and with the previous board there was an indication that there might possibly be another $4 million. From what I can see and what I understand, there is a need here for space facilities, there is also a need for sanitary facilities. So, the minister is going to go out and assess the situation. He is going to do that in conjunction with the new board, and this issue is going to be revisited at that time. We cannot say any more. We cannot offer any more but we are not going to just turn around and pay out large amounts of money without having a hard look at it and having a close look at it to see if we can find efficiencies and cost savings to deliver the right product at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with the rest of Question Period, I want to remind members of both sides of the House that we try to contain our questions and our answers within the one minute time frame. Having given members some leeway, and I understand that the Chair will give leeway most often to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Premier, but we should try to confine ourselves to that general guideline.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest we would not need the minute if the Premier dealt with the issue in a serious fashion instead of trying to play cheap politics with it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that he is so concerned about the cancer treatment clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor - and these are his words again; this is what he said to the media yesterday - that I have directed the Health Minister to visit this facility to re-evaluate the priority.

I ask the Premier: Won't he acknowledge that it is true that the minister's visit, which is going to happen next week, was first requested by the health board over two months ago and was already confirmed by the minister's office over three weeks ago? Why is the Premier pretending this is an action that he directed to happen yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is no pretending here, Mr. Speaker. This is - to use the hon. Leader of the Opposition's terminology - a serious issue. It is indeed a serious issue. The Premier, the other day in the House, said this is a sensitive issue. It is, Mr. Speaker, indeed a sensitive issue.

Next week, I am in Central Newfoundland for two reasons. One, we have the official opening of the new dialysis unit in Gander, which I am looking forward to very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: On the same day, Mr. Speaker, the second, and equally important, reason is a visit to the much-discussed clinic over the past several days.

I am looking forward to that visit, Mr. Speaker. I am looking forward to meeting with the new CEO. I am looking forward to meeting with our new board representatives with a view to seeking a solution, perhaps an alternative or an option that is very much needed, as it appears, by the residents of Central Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the Minister of Health and Community Services confirmed that the meeting was already arranged by him, and the Premier had nothing to do with the meetings that are going to take place next week while he is on vacation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, and again in the media outside the House, the Premier stated that he was cleaning up the mistakes of the past, when asked about this issue.

MR. E. BYRNE: No question about it.

MR. GRIMES: No question about it, says the Government House Leader.

I ask the Premier if he will stand in his place now and say to the people of the Province, and to the people of Central Newfoundland in particular, that the decision that was taken two years ago by the Liberal government to build a cancer treatment clinic in Central Newfoundland was and is a mistake. Answer that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would ask the people of Central Newfoundland, and I would also ask the previous government, is why they sat on it for several years, why they did not do anything about it, why the previous hon. gentleman, when he was Premier of this Province, in his own area, the area where he grew up, which he knows and loves so dearly, why didn't he do something about it back in 2000 when this was first raised? The same with the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, why didn't she do anything about it? Why was she so passionate yesterday? We have not received a correspondence from the hon. member since, I think, February, 2004.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: All of a sudden the Opposition is playing politics with cancer, and that is terrible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now the Premier has gone back to like they were when they were in opposition, even though we were running deficits and did not have the money that they have, $103 million surplus in this year, suggesting now we should have spent even more money. That is what he is suggesting.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this final question, because it is getting more and more difficult to know what to believe from this government and from this Premier. The Premier said yesterday that he did not know the state of the cancer clinic in Central Newfoundland or he might have done something about it in the Budget. Check the news last night. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador saw it.

The facts are these: The Premier has received over 100 letters and e-mails regarding the need for the clinic, verified by the Member for Windsor-Springdale last night in the public, and now he is trying to say he knows nothing about it. He says he has been lobbied hard by the Member for Windsor-Springdale. Which is it, I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker? Did he not know about it or was he lobbied hard and just did not do anything about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been aware of the issue of the cancer clinic. It is a matter that has been discussed at two separate Budget discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just allow me to give an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. I ask members for their co-operation, to permit the Premier to offer the answer.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been discussed in some detail by Cabinet during the Budget process. It has been discussed by the various boards. It has been raised by the member, that we have the need and the concern. What I did not know about was the five-gallon buckets, that was presented on television.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That makes a difference! You have to have a five-gallon bucket to get (inaudible). What is wrong with you?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It makes a huge difference, because we had a chance to see it first-hand.

I also saw people receiving medication -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Chair does not get greater co-operation, the Chair will have to call a recess, and when I have talked to the House Leaders then we will be able to reconvene and continue with Question Period. We cannot have the constant shouting across the floor. It is not serving any purpose.

I ask the Premier now if he would complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also had an opportunity first-hand to see the cramped quarters which these people were in and, believe me, it certainly had an impact on me, there is absolutely no doubt about it.

The other thing, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, there has been a request for over $4 million for this particular clinic. We do have scarce funds in government. We are trying to be fiscally prudent and not waste money, not the extravagance that was carried on by previous governments with the Cabinet ministers and everybody flying all over the world at considerable expense. If they had been conservative in the money -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Premier say, all of a sudden, that I was (inaudible) me; I am playing politics with this issue. I have to tell the Premier that you are accusing me falsely. I pushed hard for this cancer clinic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member if she could dispense with the preambles and perhaps proceed right to the question, and likewise I say the same thing to members on the government side.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell this hon. House that I pushed hard for that cancer clinic. The Central West Health Care came to us in 2002 with their request; it was approved and announced in 2003.

Let me tell the Premier, I have a folder here of news releases, stories in The Advertiser. I have been on Open Line. I have been speaking in this House 111 times since last year. If I was passionate about the cancer clinic, it is because I take it to heart. I am going to say, I am going to continue to be passionate about that cancer clinic.

I am going to ask the Premier now, admit that you knew about the cancer clinic and you were aware of the importance of it and you chose not to react or do anything about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Myself, my Cabinet, my caucus members, are aware of the very serious needs that we have around this Province, and they are numerous, and we cannot possibly meet them all, but nobody knows better than the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans exactly what a problem we were left with, what we had to deal with last year. We had very, very limited financial resources last year.

This year, once again, we have a $490 million deficit. This is not something to be laughed at or considered. So, I can only look you straight in the face and I can only tell you time and time again that cancer is something that is very dear to my heart personally, and to all the members on this side of the House. If we can do something, we are going to do something.

The minister is going out next week. He is going to have a look at it firsthand, but we cannot just write a cheque out for $4 million if that is not the amount that is necessary. We have a new health board that is in place that are going to have a look at this. They will be on the job, I think, next Friday. Perhaps you should actually wait until Friday to go out and when they are actually there, which is what he will do. He will wait until next Friday, the minister indicates, when that new health board is there. We will have a look at it, but we have to make sure that the numbers are accurate. We have a responsibility to people, but at the same time we have a responsibility to those cancer patients, and we will deliver on that responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to react to this. The Premier really lacked credibility on this issue. He is saying that he was left with a mess. The Finance Minister stood on his feet Monday and talked about the improved situation in our Province financially. He has had all kinds of lobby from everyone involved. The meeting was requested by the Central Health care board and you are going out.

Premier, the buck stops with you. You have the power to stand in your place, you have access to the finances to do it, they are looking for $3.2 million - in 2003 dollars, the year it was approved. Can you stand and say: Yes, we are going to do it. That is all you need to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we work in consultation with the Minister of Health, we work in consultation with the health authorities, we work in consultation with the member from the area, we work in consultation with ministers from the area. It is all about everybody discussing it and a team approach on this side. That is the way it always has been and that is the way it will be done.

When the proper process has been gone through and when the minister comes back, in conjunction with the health board and they make a recommendation to us, then we will look at it. We are giving it very serious consideration. I cannot tell you anymore. If you want to keep asking me, I will keep telling you that we are going out next week. As soon as that health board is in place, we will be there on the site and we will be looking at it. You have my assurance of that. I cannot give you much more than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, today in the House we are going to get around, after Question Period, of voting on a bill that will allow government to put $103 million on government buildings that the doors are not open yet, pay off a mortgage of $117 million. Certainly, goodness, the Premier can take $3 million out of that money and say to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor: this is a regional issue, it is not just for Grand Falls-Windsor.

I ask the Premier today: Mr. Premier, will you show some compassion, show some leadership? Will you stop the suffering? Will you stand in your place - you can do it. This money that we are going to debate in a few minutes, you can do it. It is going to be done before the end of March. It is within your grasp, all you have to do is agree to it. Go and stand in your place, the Province will thank you for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this government will show compassion. We have already shown compassion. I think if you go down through the Budget and you look at what we have done just on the health care side, nobody can speak to that any better than the Minister of Health; $23 million that we have put into diagnostic equipment, new MRI, new CAT scanners, new mammograms, new diagnostic tools for cancer. We put more money into cardiac procedures. We put money in to deal with even hospital debts so that they can restructure and deal with their debt. From a compassionate perspective, we are doing absolutely everything we can but it is a big Province, we have limited means. When you talk about paying down the debt, that is the debt that your government left us with.

The projection that we had last year was that our debt this year would be $1.1 billion. We have it down to $490 million in just fifteen months. We are doing the best we can. We would have to work twenty-six hours a day, if there were two extra hours in the day, to try and just clean up the problems that you have. But, from your perspective - from a compassion perspective we are a very, very, very compassionate government and we are trying to do (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, the last Minister of Health who would not want to write you $150,000 cheque is back in the back benches, so I know how much consultation you do with the department.

Mr. Speaker, the theme of this year's Throne Speech and Budget focused on culture and the arts. The Premier announced all sorts of initiatives for art groups all across this Province. Yet, against the advice of Labrador educators, mayors, his own MHA, he still refuses to come up with the funds for a performance auditorium to serve all of Labrador.

My question is for the Premier, why doesn't his arts and culture vision include Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have shown our concern for Labrador in our Budget this past year, $56 million is going to be spent up there. We talked about it just a few weeks ago when the full Cabinet met in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we understand the need for the centre that the member is looking for. We have had members in the House present petitions, and the Member for Lake Melville made the case many times with respect to the centre that is required in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. But, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to priorities. We know that the people in the area -

AN HON. MEMBER: Labrador is not one of the priorities!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the member on that side said Labrador is not a priority. Let me say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that this government has shown much more priority for Labrador than the previous Administration has ever shown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we know the need. We know the want. We have been there. We saw what the people want in Labrador. We have the Minister for Labrador Affairs say that he will meet with the people there and make that a priority for himself. He was in Ottawa just yesterday discussing this very matter, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was in Ottawa looking for federal money to build a provincial auditorium in Labrador. The minister knows full well that the federal share has been available for the past two years, Mr. Speaker. That federal program is due to expire at the end of this month, only seven days from now. How can the minister demand federal participation now that his government - by refusing to come to the table - has turned down $300,000 that is already available for this project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The minister was in Ottawa yesterday and he was meeting with various ministers up there to try to get funding for this facility, but what we are at here, Mr. Speaker, is looking at possible alternatives. This building will cost $3 million to do. That was a soft figure that was thrown out to us last year and the year before. The Province would have to come up with $2.4 million. As we now speak, Mr. Speaker, that estimate is now up to $4.14 million. If we can come up with funding from the feds to put more money into it, it would be easier for the Province and it is a road that we could go down, but until the point in time when we can reach that, that we will have to look at other alternatives. There are no more ifs, ands or buts about it than that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay is saying that the Premier is misleading the Labrador residents by inferring that the Mayor selected the priority for Labrador. Government has told the people of Labrador that they cannot have two things at a time. They have to settle for a set of plans for a long-term care facility, but the facility - not the facility itself. There is a commitment from Heritage Canada and the new cultural facility was previously approved by the provincial-federal infrastructure program.

I ask the minister: Will he now not proceed with this project before the federal infrastructure fund expires on March 31, 2005, which is seven days from now, which was approved? This fund expires, I say to the minister; it is time to get the project done now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I said earlier, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs is actively pursuing this, but I want to address one concern he made and that is this: I was at that meeting, and most of Cabinet was at that meeting, except one. The mayor was there, and he was asked a question: Is there a priority? The mayor did say - because I heard it myself: It is like asking me to chop off which finger.

The Premier said to him: If it boiled down to priorities, which would it be? He said: I would have no other choice but then to pick the long-term care facility.

He said that clearly at the meeting, Mr. Speaker, so we are following the mayor's concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

As a result of the First Ministers' Meeting and the new Health Care Accord last fall, the provincial government officials estimated that we would get an additional $35 million for last year and $50 million for this year, for a total of $85 million. This was for new priorities, reducing wait times, catastrophic drug programs, and increased access to services.

When we look at the Budget, Mr. Speaker, we see $23 million for new diagnostic services. We see some other monies, but nowhere near the $85 million that came forward. Why couldn't the Premier find, in this $85 million, money for a cancer treatment centre in Central Newfoundland, a CT scanner for the Burin Peninsula, and a comprehensive drug plan for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? What happened to the rest of the $85 million? Did it go on the deficit? Why isn't he using it for health care for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am pleased to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the base budget in the Department of Health and Community Services has increased this year over last year by some $119 million in one year. In one year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - representing an increase of approximately 7 per cent from last year to this year. In fact, the total expenditure in the department last year was $1.6 billion, almost one-half, about 48 per cent, actually, of the provincial expenditure; this year, well in excess of $1.7 billion for the health needs and the health interests for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows that this new money was earmarked for certain special specific priorities, including a catastrophic drug plan for across this country. Mr. Speaker, why is it that every province in this country, except us, has a program that deals with drug costs outside of seniors and those on income support? Why do we not have a comprehensive drug plan like every other province, including P.E.I., that deals with catastrophic drug costs, that deals with everybody and not just people who qualify for these two programs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Again, with respect to the drug plan, Mr. Speaker, we invest in this Province a total of $114 million, an increase, I might add, of some $7 million from last year; and indeed, with respect to the provincial drug plan, it is important to know that this government has added some twenty-five new drugs to the formulary this year compared to last year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - twenty-five new drugs, new medications, that are again there to deal with the concerns and the health care needs of our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

You have time for a very brief supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that only certain people qualify for these programs, and every other province in the country has a copay system for everyone so they are not impoverished by the high cost of drugs should they have a serious illness. Why don't we have one here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we respond to and identify the health care needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the best of our ability. Again, what is important to recognize is the increased amount that is allocated to the provincial drug plan for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and it is done keeping in mind two features: One, our ability to do so; and, secondly, keeping in mind the health interests of our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorian.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Budget included funding for three long-term care facilities in the Province, facilities that are badly needed but are not yet underway. There is another long-term care facility that is badly needed and is already under construction in Grand Bank.

I ask the Premier: Will you keep your promise to the residents of the Burin Peninsula who use a seventy-year-old rundown cottage hospital and, instead of paying down $43 million on The Rooms in St. John's, provide funding to enable the new health care facility under construction in Grand Bank to proceed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we are embarking on a very important and exciting long-term care plan for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In fact, in this Budget we specifically identified three communities in our Province: the City of Corner Brook, the Town of Clarenville and the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. These three communities will see direct input of funding this particular year so that we can move forward, beginning with these three municipalities, to a long-term care facility regime in the entire Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I am happy for those three communities and they are badly needed, but what about Grand Bank? Don't they fit into your long-term plan?

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how easy it is for this Premier to say one thing and do another. He refers to anyone he says has broken a promise as dishonorable, yet he can do the same and think it is okay. Premier, your actions are what give politicians a bad name.

Why is it okay for you to break your promise that you made during the election while you were in Grand Bank, to complete the health care facility?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I understand commitment, Mr. Speaker. I know what commitment means. When I stand in an election and I run in a district, the District of Humber West, I make a commitment to the people of Humber West, that I will stay there and that I will represent them throughout my term of office. You tried to abandon the people in your district when you (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. REID: What a silly man! What a silly man!

MR. GRIMES: What a fool you are!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

We have time for a brief supplementary by the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: As I said, Mr. Premier, your actions are what give politicians a bad name. You are a prime example of why people don't like politicians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the response yesterday from the Minister of Health and Community Services, that there won't be a CT scanner for the Burin Peninsula has caused a lot of anger on the Burin Peninsula.

Why is it that you think the people of the Burin Peninsula don't deserve a CT scanner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the majority, or certainly a large number, of the residents of the Burin Peninsula have access to the Clarenville facility. I might add, Mr. Speaker - I want to make a point because this is important.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I want to make a point, Mr. Speaker. The Clarenville facility in this Province -

MR. GRIMES: Go to Clarenville. Go to St. John's. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have a few seconds left for, in fairness, to give to the minister to finish his answer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Clarenville facility has one of the best wait time records in the entire Province. In fact, most of the residents of the Burin Peninsula who access that facility are involved only in a two week wait period.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to all other features of health care on the Burin Peninsula, whether it be long-term care, whether it be CAT scan, whether it be dialysis, these decisions and reviews will be dealt with on a go-forward basis as we have our new integrated health authorities coming into effect in a matter of days and in conjunction with government and the people of the Burin Peninsula, and our new health care authorities (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

During Question Period today, although it will not be shown on the public record, there were some expressions used that were clearly unparliamentary. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo was heard by the Speaker in referring to the Premier to use the word lie in direct reference to the Premier. I would ask the Member for Twillingate & Fogo if he would withdraw his unparliamentary language?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier misled the people of the Province and if I used the word lie, I will withdraw it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the level of intensity of debate in the House. However, there cannot be a qualification and in offering an apology you cannot again offend the House by saying the Premier misled the - we ask you to withdraw your comments unequivocally.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not apologize but I will withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The second incident today involved the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The second incident today involved the Leader of the Opposition, in referring to an hon. member opposite he used the word fool. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would withdraw that comment.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order is raised by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all realize that we play by rules here in this House. You are the person, I guess, in common language who enforces those rules. I would like to bring a point of order to the issue of times for answering and responding to questions.

Since we started in this new session of government, last spring was the first sitting, I think everybody has tried to adhere to the Chair's rulings in terms of asking more questions in a timely fashion and trying to have some kind of equality between the amount of time it takes to ask a question and the amount of time it takes to respond. I fully realize that you cannot always do that. It is not exact science. Sometimes the questions may be very brief and it takes a minister some context in which to answer. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Chair previously, that I do not think the equality is being achieved when we have a question of ten seconds and answers of fifty-nine. We saw it here again today. All we ask is that, number one, if the rules of the House are going to be enforced, the rules should be enforced fairly for both sides.

When we see things of this person did this and this person did that, lots of temperatures have run in here in the course of the Question Periods in the last few weeks. I would suggest, if the Chair is going to be picking out: I heard this and I heard that, there are a lot of things, I would suggest, from all of us, that depending on who you turn your ears to on any given day, we may or may not be all chastised by the Chair. I am just suggesting that the issue of fairness has been raised by this caucus over here. We saw it again here today, in terms of the amount of time being permitted to respond to the questions.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

To the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader, I can only say this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask members opposite - I sat down and listened in silence to my colleague who has raised a point of order. From time to time, depending on the issues in this House, points of order are raised to clarify certain situations. I appreciate the point of view and the role that he has to play, and I listened to him because I wanted to make sure that my response was adequate and to the point that he has raised. I am not going to be able to do that if members opposite are going to continue to interrupt. I just ask for a few moments to be able to respond to your own House Leader's point, please.

To the point of order raised in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, the rules are fairly clear. I understand that. There is latitude the Speaker must, I guess, apply with respect to points of order or with respect to issues that are contentious, that are more hotly debated. Questions are normally supposed to be - the first question, a short preamble; supplementaries to the point. Ministers and members opposite on the government side who answer on behalf of the government, according to the rules of our House and standard parliamentary tradition which has evolved over the years, the response is supposed to be the point. There are times that latitude is provided because of the nature of the issue.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to you is this: On that point that the Opposition House Leader has raised, we respect the guidance of the Chair on that matter. That may evolve or change from time to time, depending on the issue, but I am certainly not going to challenge the Chair's point of view.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, an important point that the member raised, and I think he asked a question about the Chair himself - being you at the moment - with respect to comments that are made. There is an obligation on the Speaker of the House that if he hears unparliamentary language, no matter where it may be, on either side of the House, that if the Chair hears that, he must respond to it. It does not need a prompting by a point of order by members of the House.

To be truthful, Mr. Speaker, I have raised some of the those points of order and I have borne the brunt of having to stand and say that what I said was unparliamentary, over my career here, and have dutifully withdrawn.

I guess to my colleague's point, I do not necessarily share the point that he has made, because if you, in your capacity as Chair of the House, hear unparliamentary language, there is an obligation on you to raise it before anyone else does. If you do not hear it, there is an obligation on the members' part to raise it to your attention to investigate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a brief response to that comment there.

I only pointed out the references to the issues you raised regarding unparliamentary language as one example of what was a sense of unfairness by the Opposition. The second issue I pointed out was concerning the brevity of questions, and how the time limits are applied.

I mean, we also had the issue of - as the Government House Leader says, it is recognized in our system, albeit not in our Standing Orders, that there is a preamble to your first question, and the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans was denied that preamble by the Chair today. That is where we have a perception, which I think is properly grounded, that the rules are not being applied equitably. That is why we raised the issues, not to disparage the Chair but to just see, if the rules are there, that we all live by them and we have them applied fairly.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe I take the comments by the Opposition House Leader in the intent in which I hope they were presented, not to challenge the Chair, because the Chair is not to be challenged on these particular matters. However, I want to make a few comments, and the comment is to the extent that I have always tried to be very, very fair.

We have had a 35 per cent increase in the number of questions asked in Question Period since I have assumed the Chair. Over 900 questions were asked in the last session, an average of seventeen questions per day. That, I think, indicates that I have tried to facilitate the posing of questions and the answering of questions; however, in doing so, it has always been my position that the Opposition always have more questions than there is time in which they can be asked, so therefore we have tried to push it forward. This why, from time to time, I ask ministers if they would take their places. I do believe the record will show that is not a hesitation that I have whatsoever, to ask any minister, or any member of the government, when they have reached about a minute, to take their place. The same is true of people who are asking questions.

However, the point made by the Opposition House Leader, in no parliamentary references is there any connection directly between the length of time a question takes to be asked and the length of time that can be taken to answer the question. In Ottawa, there is a thirty-five second time limit. Recently now, in British Columbia, there is a one minute time limit for the first question, thirty seconds for the supplementary, and twenty seconds for the third or the second supplementary, with equal amounts of time for members to answer those particular questions.

I have asked the two House Leaders, together with the other members of the committee, if this is a concern. If you wish to see the rules applied differently, then we have a Standing Orders Committee, and I would ask that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

In the meantime, I will try my best every day - and, again, on preambles, I do know the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans was getting into, I thought, an extensive preamble and I did caution her on it. I did not prevent her from going and putting forward her complete question, and she did take the full length of time that she wanted.

Again, I would ask these members who feel like that, that they would address their issues in the privacy of the Standing Orders Committee.

Thank you.

It being Wednesday, I assume we have the consent of the House to continue with routine business.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we would ask leave of the Government House Leader - I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with him. We realize that on Private Members' Day normally at 3:00 p.m. we get into private members' issues. There have been discussions between myself and the Government House Leader, and we agreed and he indicated to the House yesterday that we would be doing government business today rather than private members'. Given that we have already had that change, I am wondering if the Government House Leader and his caucus would grant leave to have a few petitions at least, albeit we are at 3:03 p.m., past the 3:00 p.m. time limit.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We will continue, then, with routine proceedings.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am tabling today in the House the Report of the Public Tender Act Exemptions for the month of November 2004, December 2004, January 2005, and February 2005.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the crab harvesters in my district and in the District of Burin-Placentia West, and in fact the entire Burin Peninsula.

I had the opportunity to meet with the fisherpeople last Friday, actually, and they expressed some real serious concerns about what is happening with the Minister of Fisheries and with his determination, I guess, to just push ahead with the recommendation that is contrary to the Dunne report.

They are asking the minister and they are asking, I know, their own MHAs, because I do know that I was asked to give a copy of the petition to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and they asked that he would present it in the House as well, recognizing that he is, of course, a member of the government, and hoping that by presenting that petition on their behalf he would, in fact, have some influence on the minister.

I am hoping that he will rise today and present that petition, as his constituents have asked him to, and the message that I delivered to him on their behalf as well as a copy of the petition.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where the minister, on a couple of occasions, actually promised the FFAW that he would consult with them. I have seen the correspondence. I have seen the letters in which he agreed that before anything happened with respect to the fishery, to the crab fishery in particular, that he would in fact consult with the FFAW. That has not happened and I can tell you that the harvesters are feeling hard done by, as are the plant workers. What they are saying is that if you look at the fishery - and I think we all recognize that without the harvesters and without the plant workers, but in particular without the harvesters, there would not be a fishery. As much as processors want to process fish, if there are no fish to process then of course there will not be a fishery.

What has happened here is that the primary stakeholder in this whole process has been left out. They have not been consulted. In fact, what they are expecting to happen to them is something that would affect their very livelihood, where in fact their income will be limited; where in fact they will not be able to have the same quota as they have had in the past and, in fact, where they feel that they may as well not fish if it means that, at the end of the day, they have to abide by what the Minister of Fisheries wants to do, is determined to do, and is forcing on the harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is interesting, because when I met with the crab fisherpeople they also talked about the cod fishery and what is happening there, and they really felt that this minister has betrayed them. The minister who boasts about having worked for the FFAW. The minister who boasts about knowing the fishery, being apart of the fishery. They really believe that he has betrayed them. He has let them down. They put it in much stronger words than I can use here in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you, they are really hoping that he will give this some sober, second thought. They hope that when he hears from them and their concerns, which are very legitimate, that he will in fact agree to meet with them; that he will sit down with the FFAW and that he will listen to their concerns and make them a part of this consultation process. That is all that we are asking the minister. Instead of forging ahead with a report or a decision that is contrary to the Dunne report, that in fact he do exactly what Mr. Dunne recommended, and that is before introducing any kind of production quotas that in fact he consult with all of the stakeholders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present on behalf of several people in my district:

WHEREAS we do not believe that the new RMS system will create stability in our community; and

WHEREAS by following the formula of a share equal to not less than 90% of an average of the last three years the proposed RMS system will significantly reduce the amount of crab that our plant, Deep Atlantic Seaproducts Inc. will be allowed to process; and

WHEREAS with the new equipment that Deep Atlantic Seaproducts Inc. has installed in 2004 we, the workers of Deep Atlantic, need even more crab to obtain the number of hours required to receive EI; and

WHEREAS we feel that Deep Atlantic Seaproducts should not receive any amount of crab that is less than the amount processed in 2004;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the hon. Trevor Taylor, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the provincial government to not implement this new RMS system.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by around 250-odd people in my district to present this petition on their behalf and I gladly stand on my feet today and do that on behalf of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's District.

Over the past couple of weeks, since the announcement was made on the new plan to address the Raw Material Sharing system in the Province, I have had the opportunity to attend three meetings in my district, one with the plant workers in St. Mary's and two with fishermen in my district, one in Admiral's Beach on Friday afternoon and also in Riverhead.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns and issues out there in relation to the system that the minister has brought forward and I brought those concerns back to the minister. I have fully informed the minister of those meetings, what occurred at those meetings, the ideas and suggestions that have come from those meetings, and put it back to the minister.

As I said, the fishery is a major industry, not only in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's but, indeed, throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue that many, many communities depend on to survive. We have seen our share, over the past ten or twelve or fifteen years, of what the downturn in the fishery can do to our communities, and whatever process that is put in place, whatever process that the government comes forward with, is something that is fair and equitable to everybody who are out there. The concerns of the people in my district, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you, have been brought to the minister and the minister is fully aware of the concerns of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's and I look forward to working with the minister on finding a suitable solution to the concerns that people have in my district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a number of petitions from harvesters and plant workers around the Province, but today I have been asked to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Fogo Island pertaining to the health care facility out there that was opened last year - or I should have said, half opened last year by this Tory government.

Mr. Speaker, five years ago the Liberal government committed to and built a twenty-bed health care facility on Fogo Island. Unfortunately, for the residents of that Island, the building was not slated to open until after the 2003 election; the election that the Tory government won, I might add, unfortunately for the people of Fogo Island. Because during, to, and prior to the election, today's Premier of the Province met with various groups around Fogo Island and committed that if he and his caucus were elected, then they would, indeed, see their hospital opened. What the Premier did not tell them, Mr. Speaker, what he did not, and he misled them by not saying it, is that he only planned -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, the member has been advised today. We had a ruling yesterday, no member on either that side or this side can impute a motive on another member. In other words, you cannot say that member misled him or he misled, or I cannot say about the Member for Twillingate that he is standing now presenting a petition misleading people. I am not allowed to say that. It is unparliamentary.

As I said yesterday, the member can say that he felt that the government did it or, as a government, we did but he cannot single out any particular member, whether that be a Premier or any other member in this House, and purposely impute a motive by saying that a particular member, no matter who he or she may be or no matter what district he or she may represent, he cannot impute that motive.

I will just ask the member to withdraw it, and just be conscious of that tried and true parliamentary principle in the House of Assembly.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I personally must admit, I did not hear the actual context in which the Member for Twillingate & Fogo used the words but I would submit, and I realize that the Chair likes to use Marleau as an authority in this particular House, but that does not detract from the point and fact, of course, that Beauchesne is, indeed, still an authority, albeit the Chair prefers the other.

I would submit to the Chair, in this particular case, that context is what is crucial. In Beauchesne, for example, just to use a word in and of itself does not make it necessarily unparliamentary. We have, for example - and I refer the Chair to Beauchesne, page 147, where they talk about, since 1958 certain words and phrases have been ruled to be parliamentary. Also, on page 148 - actually, it is in alphabetical order - it says misleading and misled have been held to be parliamentary. So, it is fine - and I agree with the Government House Leader, there are times when phrases are used that are, indeed, unparliamentary but simple use of the word does not make it unparliamentary.

Now, I did not hear the context so I may be at a loss here and totally out of line as to what the Chair would rule and say that the context here was unparliamentary, but I would just say this for the point of ensuring that the Chair takes it into consideration, at least, that it need not absolutely be unparliamentary just because it is sometimes held to be unparliamentary. The context must be considered here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, speaking to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the statement of the point of order by the Government House Leader is actually inaccurate. The word mislead, by itself, does not impute motives at all. Many things can be misleading. The concern that speakers have had over the use of the word mislead has to do with whether or not someone is actually accused of deliberately misleading the House, deliberately misleading, generally, the House, not misleading someone else. If the suggestion is that someone is misled, then that is not unparliamentary by itself. If the suggestion is that someone is deliberately misleading - for example, lying, intending to mislead, intending to do something - that is a different matter. I do not believe that the context that I heard the speaker, the Member for Fogo & Twillingate, give was that he said that it was a deliberate intention to mislead the House of Assembly, which is, I think, what the parliamentary rule applies to.

I think if Your Honour has a good look, or listens to Hansard, and listens to the recording, he will find that certainly in my assessment there did not appear to be a suggestion that the minister was misleading the House of Assembly, and deliberately doing so, which is what the rule applies to.

I would urge Your Honour to listen carefully to that and apply the rule based on the context as indicated by the Opposition House Leader, and not just say that the word mislead itself, and by itself, is unparliamentary.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this.

First of all, to my hon. colleague for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and my hon. colleague the Opposition House Leader, the point that I raised upon was not that the word mislead was unparliamentary. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite. I even advised all members of the House that there are many ways in which you can say and use the word mislead, or misleading, or government has misled, as I said yesterday.

The Leader of the Opposition, if you notice, did exactly yesterday what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo did. The Leader of the Opposition stood yesterday and said the Premier misled somebody. I stood on a point of order after Question Period. The Leader of the Opposition withdrew, and he said: I will gladly take the Government House Leader's advice and say the government misled.

The fact of the matter is this - and herein lies the pith and substance of the argument - one: it is all about context. The statements made by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, in my view, and it is the reason why I rose on a point of order, go to imputing a motive on another member, which is not parliamentary, and you cannot use one principle, Mr. Speaker - there is a long-standing tradition and practice in parliamentary procedure and parliamentary law that you cannot use one principle of parliamentary law or parliamentary practice to abrogate another principle. They are there to support one another.

The fact of the matter is this: There are many ways in which the word mislead and misleading can be used, and are used often. I use those often myself at times, but the fact of the matter is that does not, in any way, shape or form, allow another member to stand up and accuse one other member of misleading people in this House or intentionally misleading, because it does impute a motive on another member and that clearly, Mr. Speaker, is unparliamentary.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must address the point raised by the Government House Leader again, because he says that you cannot use one rule to try to get around another problem. I have no problem with that issue, but also you cannot say that because there was a ruling in one particular instance, based upon some particular specific facts, that the same rule must be applied in every other set of facts that are even similar to it later.

For example, the fact that the Opposition Leader stood up yesterday, when he used the word misled, and withdrew, I think that speaks to the credibility of the Opposition Leader because he acknowledged in that particular case, in that particular context, in that particular fact situation, that he intentionally, deliberately, was accusing someone of misleading them. That speaks to his honesty and his credibility. That is not what we are dealing with here today. You must consider the context of each particular member's utterances in what they have said.

If this Member for Twillingate & Fogo gets up and says, I did not insinuate anything being deliberately done to mislead anybody here, that is his call. You have to consider the context in which he said it. I am often misled. I am often misled by statements in this House by the government, but it does not mean I am misled by them deliberately. I am sometimes misled because they have not given the full facts, or they have said one thing that led me down another trail to think something else.

I would not accuse the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for example, of deliberately trying to mislead me, but it does not take away from the fact that because he did not tell me all the story that I am still misled. If I have to worry every time I use the utterance of the word misled in here that I am going to stand up and withdraw because I said something, that, to me, is a way of the government always suggesting impure motives on my part, when I had no intention of doing such.

It is a very delicate case. To say someone deliberately misled somebody is one issue, but to always be popping up and saying: Oh, he used the word misled, unparliamentary, withdraw. I did not cast any negative aspersions on anybody if I genuinely was misled, whether it was intentional or not. If I was genuinely misled, I am entitled to say that. So, the context must be considered, and we were not trying to use one rule to beat another problem. The context rule must be considered.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is well aware of what Beauchesne would say in these matters. Beauchesne tried to codify the various words which have been ruled as unparliamentary and parliamentary in various contexts. As we note in Marleau and Montpetit, it says,"Since the Speaker must rule on the basis of the context in which the language was used, points of order raised in regard to questionable language must be raised as soon as possible after the irregularity has occurred." And, of course, that happened here.

"In dealing with unparliamentary language,..." - again quoting from Marleau and Montpetit, it says - "...the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber."

It also says, "The codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn."

In this particular case it is not unparliamentary to use the word misled; however, we have to be always cognizant of whether it is directed against a collective group. What might apply to a collective group, for example, like a government, or like members of the Executive Council, would not necessarily apply in the same manner when it is said to an individual. For example, I would say to all honorable members that what you might apply collectively to a group may be passable in parliamentary language, but if you specifically say it directly to a member of the House then you are compromising the integrity of that particular member.

I would say to all members that we should always be aware that the use of offensive, provocative language in the House is strictly forbidden, and words that would take away from a member's integrity have to be ruled by the Speaker as being unparliamentary.

In this particular context, the speaker heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo in reference to, I think, a past campaign, or some issues in his district, say, the Premier misled the people, and so on and so forth. I would ask him if he would withdraw those comments.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize I was going to cause such a kerfuffle over the word misled. If I have offended anyone's sensibilities here I will gladly apologize for that and withdraw it. Mr. Speaker, I guess I am going to have to rephrase what I said. I will withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thank the hon. member. However, the member should also know that there is a three-minute time limit on his petition. I think, in fairness to the hon. member, we will permit him to continue. He has about a minute or so left.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I had a minute. I won't question your judgement, but I think I have approximately three. Anyway, I will withdraw the statement about misleading and I will let the people in the Province decide what word they want to put on it.

What I said is that the Premier of the Province, prior to and during the last election campaign, went to Fogo Island, met with various groups, including town councils in the area, and told them that: If I am elected, we will open your hospital on Fogo Island. Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, ten of the twenty beds in that facility were never opened. I will let the people of the Province decide whether that was a promise issued and a promise kept. In my books, even though the word misleading is inappropriate, and I won't use it in referring to the Premier again, I will let the people of the Province decide what word they would like to put on a situation that involved what I just talked about.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there are still ten beds on Fogo Island that need to be opened. There are ten beds out there, five acute care beds and five chronic care beds, that need to be opened. Right now we have five of each and there are people, elderly people for the most part, who show up at that hospital on various occasions and are being told to go home, because we don't have a bed for you, when there are ten rooms in that facility that had ten beds that were taken back from them by the Tory Government and shipped to Gander under the cloak of darkness. They are told they either have an option of sleeping on a stretcher in the hallway or going back home.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that in this day and age where we have surplus budgets, that this is not acceptable to the people of Fogo Island, especially in light of the fact that the Minister of Finance and the Premier were up in the last few days announcing three new chronic care facilities, one for his own district, I might say, one for the Premier's district. I bet - as he so eloquently preaches when he stands in this House, I made the commitment to the people of Corner Brook that they were going to have a long-term care facility. The Premier also made the commitment to the people of Fogo Island that he was going to open the beds in that hospital but he did not do it. Mr. Speaker, I think that is shameful!

The fact of the matter is, the Premier spoke this afternoon and said that he did not realize that they were using five gallon buckets in the cancer clinic in Grand Falls, and had he known this, he would have acted earlier. I guess what he is saying to the people on Fogo Island is if they are ill and they are sick and are forced to sleep in the hallways of the brand new facility that we have out there, and they are forced to throw up in a five-gallon bucket, then maybe he will look at the possibility of opening the ten beds that he deliberately - I cannot say the word.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, all I am asking him to do is honour the promise that he made during the election and open the ten beds before he builds ten more chronic care beds around the Province. Open the ten that exist currently in a brand new facility on Fogo Island so that the elderly and the chronically ill will not have to leave Fogo Island and go and spend their last days in a facility in Corner Brook or in Clarenville. That is all I am asking: Live up to the commitments. Live up to his own words. He talked about Paul Martin's commitment and how he should honour it. I ask the Premier to live up to the commitment that he made to the people of Fogo Island and open the ten beds that are so dramatically and so drastically needed on that Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I have a message from His Honour, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The Speaker has received the following message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2005, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ________________________________________________________

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move motion 2, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 3, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to confirm my time to speak on this bill.

CHAIR: The first member speaking on this particular resolution will have fifteen minutes and the next speaker from the government side will have fifteen minutes, and each alternate speaker will have ten.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 3, I talked about this bill in Question Period about less than an hour ago. What this bill is doing is asking this hon. House to agree to allowing the government, of which they are the majority, to spend $117 million to pay off The Rooms, which is $43,500,000, and a lot of other schools totaling $73,600,000, for a total of $117,100,000.

Now, here we are today, March 23, 2005, where the issue of the day is the suffering of the people who use the Grand Falls-Windsor cancer clinic. Government has the nerve - I guess it is all about choices and priorities - to come to this House of Assembly when they know that so many people in this Province are in such dire need. They are asking all of us, the Opposition and other members in this House, the New Democratic Party, and their own caucus - who are not allowed to speak against the government - to collectively say: Yes, go ahead and do this. You can spend $117 million. You see, that is a surplus. What that means is that government took in more money this year than they needed to look after the day-to-day operation of running the government in this Province. They decided to fabricate and create a deficit of $14 million. In other words, they had $103 million extra. They could have used it to look after any of the needs out here in the Province. They could have looked after Grand Bank. We have a gazebo, I guess, out there blowing in the wind. A steel frame, a skeleton, that should have been covered now and well under way to being opened. It should have been opened next April. The people in Grand Bank have been left out in the cold. There is no compassion for those people.

The people in Grand Falls-Windsor; the Premier tried to worm out of the fact that he knew nothing about the situation in Grand Falls-Windsor. I had all I could do to stay here and listen to that rubbish yesterday, today, and the day before. He tried to say on one media, on Open Line, that the Member for Windsor-Springdale was very vocal on the issue. Then on the other media, he got on last night on NTV and said that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, which is me, did no lobbying. I knew what he was up to, and I asked my secretary today to go and look and see how many times I had brought up the issue of the cancer clinic in the House last year. Not even counting this year, there were 111 times. I had a folder full of news releases, where I made everybody aware of the plight of the cancer clinic patients. There were numerous newspaper articles in our local paper called The Advertiser. I have been on Open Line shows. I have done everything I could to make this government stand up and notice the plight of the cancer patients in Grand Falls-Windsor. Then he had the nerve to get up and say there was no lobbying being done, but what drew his attention to it was when he saw the graphics on television of people, cancer survivors, patients, throwing up in a five-gallon bucket.

What kind of a statement is that for a Premier to make, that today he would rather come into this House and say: I want $43,500,000 to pay off The Rooms. He hasn't been down yet to cut the blue ribbon on The Rooms facility. It was a red ribbon that had agreed to it in the beginning, but when he opens it in June there will be a blue one that he is going to snip with the scissors. Now, he hasn't been down there yet to cut that ribbon but he thinks, in his mind today, he would like to $43,500,000 to pay off that mortgage. Wouldn't that be wonderful, if we could all pay off our mortgage today and be debt free? Wouldn't that be grand?

Now, there are lots of schools around the Province that should be into a long-term repayment period, but the Premier and his government today are looking for approval from this House of Assembly for $73,600,000 to pay off the mortgages on those schools which are long-term. All together, that is $117,100,000. Now, I would ask the people of the Province today: What could you do with $117 million? What could you do with it? We know what they could do with it for the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I heard the Premier; last night the Premier called Open Line. He talked Linda Swain - that was 8:30 last night - and he said: You know, there is not enough money. There are not enough funds to do the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Well, I say to the Premier today, there is plenty of money to do the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. All you have to do is skive out $3.2 million of this big amount here. You have from now until the end of March. That is last year's money and you are trying to spend it before the end of the government year, which is March 31.

If the Premier had any kind of compassion for the people in Grand Falls-Windsor, which is a regional facility - they look after people from Baie Verte to Notre Dame Bay and down the South Coast - if the Premier was able to stand up and negotiate a $2 billion Atlantic Accord that is going to be of great benefit to the people of this Province, wouldn't you think that he would take $3.2 million of this $117 million and say, I am not going to prolong that agony for you people who are taking cancer treatment in Grand Falls-Windsor. There is no need of you to sit elbow to elbow, next to somebody who is going through the very same situation as you are.

He said: I understand. All of us here in this House, all of us here in this Province, know what it is like to be touched with cancer. He said it himself; but, how can he say it out of one side of his mouth and then say: I am going to send the Minister of Health out next week to have a look at the situation, and then chat with the board and see if we can remedy this situation. You know, the Premier has been dancing around this issue.

The Central West Health Care Board - I have a job to call them anything different. I know they have a new name now, but in all my political years that is what they were called. You see, they presented the same financial request to this government last year as they presented to us when we approved it. They presented it again in November, 2004. The figures never changed, so for the Premier to stand on his feet today and say that he knew nothing about this cancer situation, this desperate, deplorable situation....

I heard, last night, the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He was taking a lot of heat because, you know, he is supposed to toe the government line. He is a member of the Progressive Conservative government. I have to give him credit, because it took courage last night for him to get on Open Line. We have not heard anything from him in the past. I know the subject is close to his heart, but I guess he was unable to make the divorce from government to go out on a limb and say: I care about it and I am doing what I can about it. He actually said on Open Line last night, that he has received hundreds of e-mails and letters and every one of them were copied to the Premier; every one of them. You know, a lot of the e-mails and letters that the Member for Windsor-Springdale received, I received them, and I know what he is saying is true because I know who they are copied to.

That was opposite to what the Premier said, when the Premier stood in his place here and in the media and said, he did not know anything about the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. He said he did not. He also said, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, last night, he made the case to the two members of Cabinet in Central Newfoundland. That would be the Minister of Transportation and Works and it would also be the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and most recently for Labrador Affairs. Both of those are very honorable colleagues of his and mine. I even looked it up in Hansard and the Minister of Transportation and Works said last year that he considered the cancer clinic a very high priority.

Now, what happened to this issue? The board in Grand Falls-Windsor made a special request in early January. They wanted the Minister of Health to come in and see the facility. The former Minister of Health, the Member for Topsail, who sits in the back benches now, who defied the Premier - and that is her reward, the back benches - she was out there with the Member for Windsor-Springdale right after last year's Budget. She knew what the situation was like.

The Clerk of the Council, who was the Deputy Minister of Health at the time it was approved by our government, in June of 2003, he said that was a fine plan and he agreed with every aspect of it. You know he is called upon, he is the Clerk of the Council, he is the top official in this government. He speaks whenever he is asked an opinion in Cabinet on the matter. I know full well that he was solicited for his opinion. He would not be able to say anything but the fact that it was a good plan for the people and the financing was in order and the board could handle it and it should be done.

We know why it was not done. The Premier can scramble all he wishes after the Budget. He did not, in his view, feel it was necessary to do or it would have been included in the Budget. It was a public issue all around the Province and it had a lot of lobbying, it had a lot of attention, but this government did not see it as being their priority. They would rather come to the House today and ask for the surplus, the manufactured crisis, a manufactured deficit. They would rather take $117 million of the people's money in this Province and they would rather go pay off the mortgage on The Rooms, or they would rather pay off the mortgage on a school that was meant to be paid off, probably, over twenty years.

What does that tell you about a government that would rather do that than look after people's health? What does that tell you about a government that would rather spend extra money, the people's money - it is not the Tory government's money, it is the taxpayers, the residents of this Province. They would rather take the $117 million and pay it on a mortgage for The Rooms than look after people's health all around this Province.

Mr. Chairman, the people around this Province have seen - I heard a caller last night from Grand Falls-Windsor. I know the gentleman, and he spoke about his wife who has just been diagnosed with cancer in January of this year. He told me he went with his wife for treatment, and he said he felt really uncomfortable because he wanted to be with his wife, but he knew the nurse, who was treating the other person next to him, had a lot of private matters to discuss with that patient. He said, he decided he would leave the room because it was uncomfortable for this other patient. They could not get to hear what the nurse was saying. You know people do not want to have their private matters discussed in public.

He also said that a lot of patients' families come with them to accompany them for treatment. That is a part of the healing process. Naturally, any of us who might be diagnosed with, or are going through cancer treatment, would like the love and support of our families with us. Many times these family members may be using the washroom facilities and all of a sudden there might be a need for a cancer patient, being hooked up to IV and the chemicals, to actually have to throw up. He did say, last night, that sitting in a chair for three or four hours receiving chemotherapy usually has one or two effects. It usually causes nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. It is bad enough for that to happen in the privacy of your own home, but when you have to go and barrel your way through other people sitting around in a corridor, or strangers, and you are uncomfortable and you are afraid you are not going to make it on time, and you have an alternative there, a five-gallon bucket, let's face it, that really takes away the dignity of an individual.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Windsor-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, would you be so kind as to give me one extra minute?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The member has leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to keep on about this cancer clinic as long as I get a chance to speak, whatever form that might be. I want the Premier to take into account what I have said and what others have said, and let him show the people of this Province that he does have a heart and he is not interested in taking $117 million of the people's money and just putting it on to pay off a mortgage when there are so many people out there suffering.

I don't know if the Premier is watching me today, but I do want you, anyone who is going to speak to the Premier, to tell him. He has the power. The buck stops with the Premier of this Province. You know, he could have stood in the House on Budget Day, the day before Budget Day, any day he wanted to, he could have stood in the House today and said: I am pleased to stand in my place and announce the cancer clinic for the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding area. He could do that. It would be a small amount to take from this $117 million, the people's money that has to be spent. Something has to be done with it before the end of March.

Mr. Premier, if you are listening, take to heart the people's concerns and do the right thing, and announce tomorrow morning, the very first thing, the cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to stand here this afternoon for ten or fifteen minutes, I guess, and pass a few comments on Bill 3 on what is commonly referred to as Supplementary Supply.

Mr. Chairman, starting off, I would like to just comment for a little while on some of the previous member's speech as it relates to the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. Mr. Chairman, fair enough, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. We understand where she is coming from, as we understand where the Member for Windsor-Springdale and other members who represent constituencies that surround our part of Central Newfoundland and feed into the health care facilities in Central Newfoundland, and the people in those districts who depend on those facilities for cancer treatment, just as we understand the concerns of many people throughout all of our Province as it relates to health care provision, health care services and what have you.

Mr. Chairman, it is fair enough, I believe, for the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to advocate on behalf of the people that she represents for a new cancer clinic in that region. We all recognize the needs of the health care system in our Province and that is why we have made some of the investments and announced some of the investments that we have on Monday as it relates to the Budget process, going forward in 2005-2006 and onward into the future.

Mr. Chairman, specifically as it relates to Grand Falls-Windsor cancer clinic, we have a newly constituted Regional Integrated Health Authority that is just coming into legal effect and force next week, I guess it is; next week, the end of the month, March 31. Mr. Chairman, we want to give that Regional Integrated Health Authority in Central Newfoundland, just as we want to do with the Regional Integrated Health Authority in Western, on the Northern Peninsula, in Labrador, in Eastern Newfoundland and the Avalon, we want to give those boards the opportunity to look at their operations, look at the needs of the people in their area. We recognize many of the needs that these people have, but you put a board in place, you put these Regional Integrated Health Authorities in place so that they can look at the needs, assess the needs and assess how best to meet the needs of the people in the various regions.

At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, I am certain that this government will respond to the needs of cancer patients and their families in Central Newfoundland, but when we do it, we will do it right and we will do it on the best advice given to us by the medical community and the people who are responsible for the provision of health care in Central Newfoundland. That is the appropriate and prudent way to go forward in situations like this, in all situations. I understand fully what the people opposite are saying, as I understand what my caucus colleagues have said on these matters.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: No, no, I am not saying that. Don't go putting words in my mouth, I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: I do not need anybody to put words in my mouth. I am quite capable of doing it myself.

Mr. Chairman, I say there is nobody suggesting that there was anything wrong with what the previous board did, or what the previous board advocated, or what the previous board proposed. The fact of the matter is, things have changed in Central Newfoundland. Things have changed for government. Things have changed as it relates to the funding available to government and we believe that the most appropriate thing to do for all people in the Province is lay out and abide by a plan for health care that delivers health care in the most cost-effective way for the people of the Province, bearing in mind that at the end of the day, the more efficient that we are, the better and the more accessible health care will be to all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we do not have that driving our decision making, then we will end up making the wrong decisions at the end of the day.

Mr. Chairman, it is similar to the situation on the Northern Peninsula. I was up on the Northern Peninsula last week again. On Friday I met with a group of people who are very concerned about the status of health care on the Northern Peninsula, particularly as it relates to what was the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board. The situation there as it relates to the Hay report, people were very concerned about that, and so they should be concerned. I understand their concerns and I, in many respects, share their concerns, but I could not go and promise to the people in St. Anthony last Friday afternoon that we were going to do this, or do that, or do something else. That is why we established the board. That is why we put a new regional integrated health authority in place. Now that board, which is now responsible for Labrador and the northern half of the Northern Peninsula will have to look at a population of 40,000-plus, as opposed to a population of 16,000 in what was the Grenfell catchment area.

When you look at that type of information, Mr. Chairman, there are considerations that you might make today that you would not make when Hay, for example, did their report, or when Grenfell looked at their operations, or whatever. That has to be factored in because, at the end of the day, we want to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the best possible health care that they can get. The best possible health care in close proximity to where people live to the extend that we can do it, and within our fiscal capacity to do so. If we do not try and do that, we will fail. By making quick political decisions, and those types of decisions of that nature, that is where you get into trouble. That is where people end up getting compromised at the end of the day, and that is how we ended up in the position that we are in right now.

Mr. Chairman, we have been in government for seventeen months. The previous government sat here for 174 months. It is funny how now they have all the answers for all of the problems in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we did not have such a monumental task and a monumental fiscal problem to overcome when we came to government seventeen months ago, maybe some more of these issues could have been dealt with in the last seventeen months. We had a monumental fiscal situation that we had to confront, and thanks to the efforts of our Premier and this government, we have been able to meet a lot of the challenges that we had confronted seventeen months ago.

As a result of the approach that this government took over the last seventeen months, we have been able to make remarkable progress in turning around the fiscal situation of this Province to the point where today we are debating a bill where we are going to pay off two long-term mortgages. And what is wrong with that? Debt reduction, Mr. Chairman, that will free up more money for the people of this Province to reinvest back into the health care services. If you do not try and do that, you will continue down the same road that the previous Administration was on. Mr. Chairman, we were on that road for 174 months and thank God, we got off it seventeen months ago.

Mr. Chairman, there are many, many demands on the fiscal purse of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; many of them. Many of them will be met over the course of this mandate and many of them will be met over the course of the next mandate - whoever the government is, hopefully it will be us. But, Mr. Chairman, one budget - as the Government House Leader has said, I am sure in this House, time and again - does not make a government. What gets dealt with in one budget is not necessarily everything that gets dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, last year we were facing a deficit that was projected in the order of $1.1 billion and we have been successful in reducing it to less than $500 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That is a far cry, Mr. Chairman, from the track that the previous Administration was on for 174 months where we had increasing, and increasing, and increasing levels of deficit and debt continuously for that whole period, or just about that whole period. That is the legacy that the previous Administration left to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the children of Newfoundland and Labrador and the grandchildren of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why it is so difficult for us to deal with the many demands on the health care system and the education system and the transportation system and what have you. What we are trying to do is lay out a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. A plan that invests in health care, education, transportation and infrastructure, municipal infrastructure, and invest in a strategic way; a way that meets the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not in a way that meets the political needs of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, that is the track that we are on and that is the track that we are going to stay on. We have delivered two Budgets so far, and the last Budget was pretty difficult. This one was a lot easier. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, the next one will be easier still, and the one after that will be easier again, but it will be easier because of prudent management and the right approach to handling the finances of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If we stick to that approach, Mr. Chairman, we will be able to ensure that the people in St. Anthony and surrounding areas, the people on the Northern Peninsula, the people in Labrador, the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander and Burin and Grand Bank, and everywhere else in this Province, will be able to have the health care services that they need. Because the track that we were on, with the deficits that we were accumulating and the debt that we were accumulating over the past number of years was surely setting us to a point where we would not be able to deliver those services because we would not be able to finance those services.

Mr. Chairman, I know I only have a short period of time to speak here this afternoon, but that is essentially what I wanted to say. You know, we can make short-term decisions. We can make short-term decisions that give us short-term popularity, but that is not going to serve the people of any part of this Province well for the long term.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to petitions presented here over the past couple of days as they related to decisions that we are taking - not I - we are taking, as a government, as it relates to the management of the fishery, decisions that the previous Administration, actually, on a couple of occasions, tried to take - on a couple of occasions tried to take - but could not carry it out, could not carry it off.

What we are trying to do is not look out five to ten months, as the previous Administration did. I do not care how popular or unpopular I am in this Province in the short term, as long as when I walk away from government, whenever that is, that the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is in a better position than when I came here.

Mr. Chairman, the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is not positioned to be competitive in five to ten years, and everybody in the fishery and in Newfoundland and Labrador knows that. If we are not competitive internationally, and if we are not competitive on the ground in Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can recruit the young people who our industry is going to desperately need in the medium to long term, then what is going to happen to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador?

I was in a processing facility in Arnold's Cove about four weeks ago.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: We bought that place, Sir. We bought that for $3.5 million, and saved that region.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, if he is so quick to find a solution for the people of Harbour Breton now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - how come he wasn't so quick to find a solution for the people of Burgeo?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible) solution for Harbour Breton, you should have talked to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile for ten years and tried to find a solution for over there. Because, Mr. Chairman, as everybody knows, and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile knows, finding a solution for the people of the South Coast is not easy, but we will work with them to try and find it. If we use the money of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador wisely, we will be in a better position to be able to deal with it. That is why we managed to put together some of the things that we did over the past seventeen months. That is why we have $3.5 million to buy the quotas that National Sea had, that would have gone out of this Province, probably, if you had been in government, which is just like what happened to the quotas in Burgeo when you were in government. That is what happened.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to try and deal with the situation in this Province. We are going to try and deal with it according to a plan. We are not going to be doing something for short-term political gains, as we saw in the past.

The challenges confronting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, both fiscally and as it relates to the future of rural areas, is not easy, and the people on the other side of the House knew that when they were there. That is why we saw so many regions of the Province going down, and that is why we saw so much out-migration from areas like the Southwest Coast and the Northern Peninsula.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) stop it.

MR. TAYLOR: No, you did not stop it, I say to the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: You stopped it, right?

MR. TAYLOR: I didn't say that we did. The solutions, I just said, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador are not easy and they are not going to be quick coming. Mr. Chairman, if you are just going to deal with politically charged arguments and deal with situations for political popularity in the short term, you will not fix it.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Member for Grand Bank presenting petitions here. If you are going to do anything for people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then try to do something on regional balance and adjacency. That is what we are doing in the Raw Material Sharing system -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - similar to what your government did in Labrador. It worked well in Labrador, and I commend you for doing it. You just did not have the guts to do it anywhere else in the Province, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that. I believe I might have said something unparliamentary there, and I withdraw it.

You did not have the intestinal fortitude to carry off the situation that needed to be carried off in this Province, Mr. Chairman. That was the problem.

MR. JOYCE: Do you think it is going to work?

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if it is going to work, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, but I know that the approach they took to rural Newfoundland and Labrador surely did not work, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That is why we have seen so much out-migration from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why health care services on the Northern Peninsula and various other parts of the Province - I heard the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, a couple of days ago, say that no babies could be born west of the Wreckhouse. Mr. Chairman, do you know why? Because the policy that they had for rural Newfoundland resulted in very few babies left, west of the Wreckhouse. That is the problem, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: I understand I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your patience. I am sure I will have an opportunity to carry on this debate over the next couple of weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I certainly appreciate being informed. It is nice to be educated, especially when the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, of course, is informative, but he need not take me out of context. The fact is that I did make a statement last week, of course, saying that now, if the Hay report, in its current form, is adopted and implemented, it says there should be no babies born west of the Wreckhouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: It has nothing to do with the context in which the Member for The Straits & White Bay North put it, that it has anything to do with rural development. It has all to do with health care, and we will see where this minister stands on the Hay report when his district in Western Newfoundland has to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to his point of order, please.

MR. PARSONS: I hope the people of Port aux Basques area (inaudible) and St. Anthony are going to be treated.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise today to speak to Bill 3, which, of course, has already been referred to by previous speakers. We are talking about looking, I guess, for approval to spend $117 million for a number of things, but I think if you look at the request itself you are looking at two major areas. One, of course, is to pay down the mortgage on The Rooms, which is located in St. John's. You are talking about $43 million there. The other large expenditure is to pay down the mortgages on some of the schools that were built in the Province.

We all know, those of us who have mortgages, that there is no need - if you have to spend money on other things in your household that are necessities - to pay down on your mortgage when you can pay the monthly amount. That is what is happening here, Mr. Chair.

It is funny, I listened to the Minister of Fisheries speak. Of course, it is something that has become very popular with this government, to blame the previous Administration. They have been in power now for going on two years and it is still a pet pastime of theirs to blame the previous Administration. Of course, that happens when there is a dearth of ideas, policy or vision by a government. We know that the debt that we have seen in this Province is, in fact, as a result of fifty-six years, and it is accumulated debt.

One of the things that comes to mind that would be a part of that, of course, would be the infamous Sprung Greenhouse. It is interesting that the member who just spoke, the Minister of Fisheries, would, in fact, stand there and blame the former Liberal government for everything, all the ills, all the woes, that we are experiencing in our Province, when nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing, of course, that we found with members opposite is that they are not shy when it comes to saying things that are not true.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I really would have hoped that when making the decisions, Cabinet would, in fact, have looked at the needs in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, that is not happening. I am really concerned about what is happening on the Burin Peninsula. Of course, the Burin Peninsula is a place that is very near and dear to my heart, the fact that I represent the District of Grand Bank, and the need for the people in the District of Grand Bank, but as well in Burin-Placentia West and in Bellevue, the need for all of those residents to have access to quality health care. It just is not going to happen if this government has anything to say or do about it.

Unfortunately, what we heard today from the Minister of Health and Community Services is that, you may as well put the gate up leading to the Burin Peninsula, because we have wiped our hands of it, despite the fact that there is a member on the government side who represents a significant portion of the population on the Burin Peninsula. What we are hearing today is: Your request for a CT Scanner wasn't even entertained. Go to Clarenville. If you need the services of a CT Scanner, if your doctor says you need to do that, then that doctor is going to have to find a way to get that patient to Clarenville or to St. John's. It was Clarenville that the hon. minister referenced today.

It is scarey to think that today we have patients who are receiving dialysis and they are receiving it in St. John's, but we have a number on the Burin Peninsula now that it should be enough to warrant dialysis services for the Burin Peninsula. Again, I fear that given the attitude by this government towards the Burin Peninsula with respect to the CT Scanner, with respect to the failure to complete the long-term health care facility in Grand Bank, that we will never see dialysis services on the Burin Peninsula. They have turned their backs on the people of the Burin Peninsula. It is so obvious today, not only from what the Minister of Health and Community Services said, but what the Premier said. He would not even acknowledge that he broke a promise to the people who use the facility in Grand Bank. He made the commitment on three occasions during the election and he has failed to live up to that commitment.

Of course he did the silly thing about pointing out the fact that I ran for a federal nomination. Well, of course! I never said I would not when I got elected, but I did so after consultation with my constituents. It is something that I don't regret doing and I can tell you, I had their support in doing it. But what does the Premier do? He points to it, that somehow there is something wrong with having done that, with wanting to represent people on the federal level.

Well, you know, it is interesting that the Premier will stand and talk about his commitment to the people that he represents, in the district that he represents but forgets that he is the Premier of the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is the Premier for the Burin Peninsula, just like he is the Premier for the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, I am sure there are other areas of the Province that are questioning whether or not he realizes that, but I am telling him - and it is too bad he fails to acknowledge that there are needs out there, there are issues out there that need to be dealt with.

I am really concerned because, of course, once you decide that you are not going to upgrade the health care facilities in a particular region and unfortunately, it appears - from what happened yesterday in the House of Assembly with the remarks that were made by the Member for Burin-Placentia West - that he concurs with the minister, that there is no need for a CAT scan on the Burin Peninsula. That, in fact, the priority - in his view - was to shorten the waiting lists for those who need cardiac surgery, and I agree with him. Obviously, it is a priority, but that is something that the Liberal government did for several years. We, in fact, put money in to shorten the wait lists for cardiac surgery. The first time that it did not happen in several years was last year when this government presented a budget. So, all of a sudden they have seen the light. It is now a priority. Well, thank heavens, they have seen the light, but there are other issues that need to be dealt with as well.

When I look at the fact that in this Budget they committed to three long-term health care facilities - and rightly so, we have an aging population. We need to make sure that we take care of our seniors, but we have committed to three more that are not even underway, when we have one in Grand Bank that we have seen $3.5 million invested in. The steel structure is there and the Premier decided, because they did not elect a PC candidate, that he was not going to live up to his commitment. That is exactly what he did. He played politics with the lives of the people who used the health care facility in Grand Bank. Right now they are going to a cottage hospital, the only one left in the Province, seventy years old. In such a dilapidated condition that it would put your life at risk to go in there. You go in there to get well but I can tell you, if you walk through the halls of that cottage hospital you would have second thoughts. You go there because you really do not have a choice.

I would like to think that the health care professionals, the members of the health care board - they said this was important. It was the right thing to do, it was a long time coming. We wanted to make sure that it was needed, that the analysis was done. At the end of the day, we ended up with a recommendation that, yes, we needed to replace not only the cottage hospital, but the Blue Crest Seniors Home, which was, in fact, built to accommodate men and women who require Level I and II care. Of course, that has since changed and now it accommodates people who require Levels III and IV care. Unfortunately, the facility that we have, because it was designed for Levels I and II care, is now not working for not only the residents but the people who have to care for them, who have to try and care for people requiring Levels III and IV care in a facility that was designed to care for people of Levels I and II.

Not only am I concerned about the health care facilities on the Burin Peninsula, but other things as well as the result of what this government has done. Look at the fishery, the mainstay of the Burin Peninsula, particularly in communities like Grand Bank and Fortune. Of course, there is always Harbour Breton on the Connaigre Peninsula as well. The government has turned its back on those people. It has allowed FPI to ride roughshod over these people, not even using the act, the authority that it has under the act to say: No, you cannot do anything that will be detrimental to the people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and who worked in the fishery for years. What they have said to the people of Harbour Breton is: You don't matter. We are putting the locks on your door. We are allowing FPI to do that.

Unfortunately, if you look at the situation in Fortune, I fear that we will see the same thing there. Even though we say, or the media tends to say: Well, you know, they secured employment for a year. In reality what it is, is that they have secured employment for fourteen weeks, if they can get the fourteen weeks. It is not a year. Marystown knows. Marystown is watching very closely because they know, just as I know, just as other people in the Province know, that it is FPI's intention to get out of doing any processing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Well, I thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the case has been made and we know that this government has decided to writeoff the Burin Peninsula, and in so doing, has in fact put in jeopardy the lives of people that I represent.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am certainly delighted to get an opportunity to rise and speak with regard to Bill 3, Supplementary Supply, to move that bill forward so that this government can get on with the business of the day and to put in place the initiatives that were put forth in the Budget.

Certainly, as I stand here today - to listen to my colleagues on the other side, you would think it was a bad news budget. When you look down through it, I would have to say that it is the best Budget that I have seen in my days in this House, and before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: All you have to do is look at the first page and the title of our Budget, which talks about A New Future and A Renewed Pride, a pride that I take as a member of this government, a pride that I take in this government because I know this government is moving in a direction that is going to carry this Province far in advance of where it is today, and certainly far in advance of the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Because if you sit here and you mind - and I am thinking of the people out there who are listening. If we listen to the colleagues on the other side, we did not do anything, that we forgot about the needs of this particular Province, that we are not listening to the people. But I can tell you, as I go through this Budget, that we have listened and not only have we listened but we have acted and we have acted in many different areas. To say that we can do everything for everybody would be impossible and we know that, but we have to put priorities in place and this is what this Budget is all about. It is about priorities and the priorities that are necessary once again, and the first priority that this government undertook when it came into power was to make sure that our fiscal situation was somewhat secure and we set certain targets. I might add, not only have we met those targets with regard to deficit reduction, but we have gone beyond them and given us an opportunity in this our second Budget to certainly move forward.

When we talk about -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) are more important than people.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: When I hear the Member for Bellevue talking about, this is more important than that, we have to look at what is out there and we have to make some decisions and we have to put some balance into the Budget. I tell you, my colleague from Bellevue, that this Budget is balanced. It is balanced and it takes into account where we should be at this particular time. Have we done everything? I will be the first to admit, no, we have not, and there are still many priorities out there. We need to move forward to make sure that those priorities can be met.

The Member for Grand Bank just finished talking about the things that were not done with regard to health care, but I look to my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, and I would say to the minister that you have done an excellent job of addressing the needs of our health system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I tell you, that is a tough portfolio, as my colleagues on the other side of the House may understand. We understand the absolute needs that are there, whether it be associated with disease such as cancer, whether it is moving forward in initiatives to, I guess, make the workplace in Newfoundland and Labrador smoke free. This minister is taking it, basically, to the extent of trying to put in place strategies that will help us to make a healthier population in Newfoundland and Labrador.

These are some examples. Our Regional Integrated Health Authorities, $20 million in their hands now to stabilize their funding so that they can do their strategic planning and move ahead with regard to the priorities of the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have $23.2 million provided to reduce patient wait times. If there is anything that we hear out there, it is that the diagnostics need to be done and they need to be done quickly. It is $23 million that is going to be put there to make sure that these wait times are going to be reduced. Again, it is very, very responsible, it is pro-active, it is moving forward and getting our people closer to getting the medical attention that they need as a result of good diagnosis.

What about equipment? We are talking about a second MRI unit, $2.6 million; CT Scanners, $2 million. We are talking about the ultrasound equipment in Carbonear, $1.3 million, as well as Corner Brook, St. John's and Labrador, and the list goes on.

As I said, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had to be reminded that we are moving forward in health and community services, and that we, as a government, want to make sure that we do have a healthy population out there. We are talking about extending services in health care. Again, with regard to cancer patients, we are talking about $3.5 million to increase surgical capacity; $2.6 million to increase surgical capacity for joint replacements; $1.2 million to increase cardiac surgeries. Again, I remind the members opposite there are over and beyond what was established last year. These are increases, and any increases that we see can only help to make sure we have a healthy population out there.

I could go on and on, but I would say to you, and to the minister, that certainly a good job has been done and you are moving forward. With this Budget, I am sure that you will bring our health care system further ahead than it is.

I could go to anyone of the departments that are here under this government, and I would say to you that the ministers have done an excellent job in making sure they are addressing the priorities that are out there. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not even look at my particular portfolio of Education. I tell you, I have been in the system for twenty-two years, as a teacher and four of it as a politician, something like thirty years, and these initiatives that are put forward in this Budget with regard to education are certainly going to move this system forward as we go -

MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I request the Chair to count and see if there is a quorum present, please.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: It looks like I will continue on. I am not sure what that question was that was posed from the opposite side, but I will continue on as I look to -

MR. GRIMES: You can't continue on, we have to count the quorum.

Quorum

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

There is a quorum present, so we will continue.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: When I was getting up to speak, all my colleagues were coming in to hear me anyway, so I do not know what our colleagues on the other side were worried about.

Back to Bill 3 and just getting to the education piece, as I was pointing out, when it comes to education, I do not think anyone would disagree that it is a most important aspect of life in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am very pleased to state, that from my standpoint as Minister of Education I was very delighted that this government took the initiative to invest in education, both at the Post-Secondary, the K to 12, Early Childhood, and, indeed, the lifelong learning piece.

It is important because, once again, it is absolutely necessary that you listen to the needs of what is out in the Province. When it came to the schools, or the school system in Newfoundland and Labrador, we certainly heard from a number of different quarters as to the directions that this government should take in addressing the needs of the particular system.

I referenced the K to 12 system and it appears that there were many challenges with regard to our buildings and our infrastructure. These were conditions that have built up over the last number of years, that certainly were not addressed, and came to the foreground as it was discovered that many of our roofs were indeed in disrepair. In order to ensure that we have safe, secure, healthy environments, an initiative was taken by this government to ensure that our children, that our students, are in safe, secure environments.

With regard to the amount of money, $26 million allocated for school infrastructure, of that $12 million is going specifically into three areas: One, to the roofs; two, to the electrical system; and three, to our doors, windows and -

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, a quorum was called by the Opposition just a few moments ago and we submit that the Table improperly applied the rule. What was suggested here was that by simply by allowing three minutes under Standing Order 13, subsection 4, the Chair of Committee could allow the bells to ring and matters would resume once sufficient members came into the Chamber. I would think that the proper ruling should be under Standing Order 14, in which case if a quorum was called in Committee the House should be adjourned and the bells rung. That procedure was not followed and we submit that it ought to be done properly.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader, you are correct and we will now call a recess.

[The Chairperson of Committees leaves the Chair and the House resumes]

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

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

Because there was no quorum present in Committee, the House is now in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under Standing Order 14, it is quite clear that when a quorum fails in Committee that the Chairperson, having ascertained that less than fourteen members were present, she accordingly leaves the Chair and reports to the Speaker. The Speaker comes back to the House and the Speaker counts the members. When the Speaker ascertains that there are fourteen members present, then the House resumes its sitting.

The Speaker has ascertained there is now quorum present, and the Committee will now resume its work.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the matters before it with respect to granting Supplementary Supply for Her Majesty, Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 3, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra minded?

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just to continue on, Madam Chair, where I left off. I was speaking about the Budget that this government has brought down, certainly a government that looks to the new future with a renewed pride.

I spoke about the different aspects of the Budget, in particular health care, but went on to education. Under education, again pointing out to my colleagues across the floor, as indeed my colleagues in this House, that we have made a major investment. This government has made a major investment in education, an investment that will see our infrastructure needs addressed, not all of them, but certainly there will be a tremendous advance in our ability to ensure that our children have safe, secure and dry classrooms. As well, in the long-term, $250,000 has been set aside to look at strategic planning to plan out where the boards want to move forward in the next number of years, so that we can put in place, I guess, a plan to ensure, once again, that our education system is moving forward.

With regard to the class size, I do not have to, I guess, reiterate the importance of class size because it is important that we do have the classes at a level which would certainly be able to bring forth appropriate learning. It is a beginning. It is part of a commitment that this party, that this government, made when they came into government, to move an initiative forward that would see the class sizes in our early primary grades less than twenty-five over the life of this particular term of office.

We were able this year to deploy fifty-two teaching units that will be allocated to the boards around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to, again, ensure that the level of, I guess, class size in the primary, particularly geared towards kindergarten and Grade 1, but there is flexibility within the boards to use those units to ensure that, certainly in the K to 3 and perhaps in the K to 6, we can keep class sizes, if not below twenty-five, certainly below thirty; again, an initiative of $3.1 million, putting back fifty-two teaching units in the primary grades, in an area where they can do the most good.

As well, another exciting initiative is the Cultural Connection Strategy. Of course, not going on to say that we are certainly introducing culture into the schools because, over the last number of years, culture, history, has played an important role in the curriculum of Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the hon. member on the other side, culture does have a good part of dealing with our health as well -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: - because if we have pride in ourselves, which we look at culture as giving, we certainly feel better about ourselves.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: If that doesn't make for a healthy population, I don't know what does.

We have to look at the balance.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: We have to look at the balance.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity with this time, and I would make sure that I get a chance later on to finish off where I started.

Thank you again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to spend the next ten minutes or so referencing this extremely important bill that is before the Committee today.

Before I deal with that, Madam Chair, I would just like to make sure that everybody understands what happened just a few minutes ago with respect to a quorum call, which the Member for Gander seems to be particularly and personally upset about.

As we talked about earlier today in points of order, there are rules that apply in this Legislature, and one of the rules is that, if there is going to be debate of forty-eight members in this Legislature to pass legislation, at least fourteen have to be in their seats to make sure that it happens. Otherwise, the session does not occur. We have a government that has thirty-four members who are asking us here today to debate the passage -

MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty-three.

MR. GRIMES: Thirty-four, counting the Chair. Thirty-four members, I said. I did not say people sitting, and I appreciate what the Government House Leader is saying because he does know and respect the rules.

They have thirty-three sitting in their seats, and one available in the Chair. Of the thirty-three, when we called the quorum - because the Whip, of course, has the job to make sure that there are enough people here to do the business; that is what that job is about - the Chair found out that there were not fourteen members. There were not fourteen members.

Here is a bill from the government, who wants this to pass - because I can tell you, Madam Chair, we are going to vote against it. If it passes, it will not be because of any of our doing. The people who want it to pass are on that side of the House, and it is their responsibility to make sure they have enough members here to do their job.

What we found out is that, in the middle of a very important Budget Debate over $117 million, they did not have enough interest - they did not have enough interest - and maybe they did, but maybe the Whip fell down on his job and did not remind them that they should be in the Legislature. This is the same Whip - and I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, except that the Whip was so happy at the Conservative Convention in Gander that he had been promoted to a job. He wasn't just an ordinary backbencher anymore, he was now the Whip, and it was the stepping stone to the Cabinet - his own words in the Gander Beacon. Oh, this is the first step; I am on the way. The Premier has great confidence in me.

He has great confidence in him to say: Make sure you have fourteen people in the House when you are trying to pass the Budget. What did he do on this first test? He failed. We did not even have fourteen bodies in here.

Now, never mind that, Mr. Chair, that has been dealt with. It is just a reminder again that we follow the rules, we know the rules, we respect the rules, and we expect that the others will get a little better at it over time. They are still fairly new, I will give them that. They are still fairly new. We were saying that last year this time, but it is time to learn. There is only so long you can have- you should learn the rules and abide by them.

Now, this issue, $117 million - this is the point that I have been making from day one about this Budget - here is a government that had the Premier of the Province, their leader, on the news last night, on Open Line, on Night Line last night, in the media again today, saying, with respect to an issue like the cancer treatment clinic in Grand Falls, first he said, I didn't know about it. Now he has changed his story, saying, well, I knew it was bad but I didn't know they had to throw up in a bucket.

I guess the new standard is, you can fall over each other out in the private waiting room. You can have no privacy. All those things are acceptable to the Premier. You can have one bathroom for twelve people. You can sit on a stool instead of a proper medical chair. He knew all of that. He knew every bit of that, but that was okay. That was good enough for the people out in Central Newfoundland, but at least they have a facility, because down on the Burin Peninsula the Health Minister and the Member for Burin-Placentia West say: Ah, good enough for them, go to Clarenville; and, if you do not get the service in Clarenville, keep on going to St. John's. That is the standard we have.

Here they are today - the other thing that the Premier said - last night I was visiting out in Trinity-Bay de Verde, I will say to the member, with some people who are interested in what is going on in the government and in the Province, and worried about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where 2,600 people have left on their watch, 2,600 people have had to leave the Province on their watch when they had all the answers and all the plans and all the solutions. Well, the solutions are not much help to those people.

When I was driving back I heard the Premier say - a new story because the story changes every few minutes. The new story was: Well, Linda we just did not have the funds available to do Grand Falls. That ties into this bill today. Here he is saying on the public airwaves: We do not have the funds available. What is this bill asking us to do, Mr. Chair? It is asking us to approve the expenditure of $117 million to pay off the mortgage on The Rooms, and some people today, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, were suggesting, oh paying off your debt, as if it was a bad thing to build The Rooms. I do not think the Member for St. John's Centre thinks it was bad thing to build The Rooms. I do not think the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation thinks it was bad thing, or a waste of money, to build The Rooms.

Every single obligation and commitment that this government made in their Budget for this fiscal year, that they read last year this time, has been met. They said they were going to spend a certain amount of money, they said they were going to do a certain number of things, and they did them. Then they laid off a bunch of people and they cut back a lot of services. A lot of it we disagreed with. They said there was going to be a cash deficit. They said there was going to be a cash deficit of $362 million in order to do what they did. Guess what we found out in the Budget two days ago? No cash deficit at all. Because energy prices, oil prices, went through the roof. They predicted $27 or $28, and for most of the year it has been in the high $40s and $50s. Some days it has been $60. People today are complaining-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: A certain measure it was for one day this year, I say to the minister, and he knows I am right.

People today are complaining about the fact that a litre of gasoline, in many Island parts of the Province, is gone over one dollar, and they are reaping the benefits of the extra 15 per cent tax on that. No breaks for the consumers. Oil prices went through the roof.

There was a new equalization program that they tried to suggest, the Premier tried to suggest, and they said in the Budget, that the Premier helped negotiate. That is the meeting, by the way, he walked out of. He did not even go. He did not go to the meeting. In case you did not know, folks, he did not go to the meeting. He did not negotiate the equalization agreement. That is done by the Government of Canada for everybody. He did not negotiate the Health Accord. The Chair of the meeting was the Premier of Ontario. The Health Accord is for everybody in Canada. It is not an agreement between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador.

I did not agree with all of the tactics, but I am delighted with the outcome of the Atlantic Accord. That is because the Liberal government promised it, and the Liberal government in Ottawa delivered it. Because of that, they are flushed with cash so that there is no cash deficit. There is no $362 million cash deficit. As a matter of fact, there is a $103 million surplus. The Premier goes on the radio and says, we just did not have the funds to put the cancer clinic for the treatment in Grand Falls, and we have $103 million surplus in cash. What is this bill asking us to do? That is $103 million that this group on that side, because they are the government, can do whatever they like with, because they do not have any obligations in the Budget, they have met them all. Everything they said they were going to do, they did, so they have $103 million.

The Minister of Finance answered my question yesterday. If they do nothing, if this bill was here, they would have paid all of their bills, done everything they said they were going to do, and the debt of the Province would decrease by $103 million. Not only would they have no cash deficit, but the debt would go down. They are saying: We do not want just the debt to go down. What we are going to do is we are going to pay off a particular kind of debt. We are going to pay off The Rooms, the mortgage on the building. We are going to pay off the mortgage on some schools that were built in the last few years. There are mortgages on a whole lot of other things, by the way. Now we are going to do more than pay it off. We are not only going to pay off $103 million worth, we are going to pay off $117 million worth. They want to pretend that there is a deficit of $14 million, so they can go around with the big story again that things are desperate, and they can try to say to the people of Grand Falls and Central Newfoundland: I do not have any money for a cancer treatment clinic, I cannot afford it.

Well, they are going to vote. They are going to take an action today or tomorrow to deliberately spend $117 million on a couple of mortgages that there is no requirement to pay. Is it a good thing to pay? Some of it, sure. When I get some extra cash, by the way, one of the things I do is try to pay off some of my mortgage; a good thing to do. In the meantime, I would not see my neighbour suffering with no access to the proper cancer treatment, so I could pay off my mortgage. I would not do it, as a Liberal, but they are going to vote for it tomorrow.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition Leader that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be back again on another point in the debate later tomorrow.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It gives me pleasure today to speak to Bill 3, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Mr. Chair, there have been a number of speakers who have spoken today about the money that the government is spending, how it is spending it, and what it is being spent on. I would like to take a minute to talk about how the government has spent the people's money, because it is the people's money that we are spending. We have an accountability and a responsibility to the people to ensure that we spend it wisely.

Mr. Chair, I want to say, today, that our Minister of Finance has done a great job in terms of the Budget that he has brought down. I have had a lot of representation from constituents in St. John's Centre who have indicated to me that they are certainly happy with the Budget that this government has brought down and feel that it has set us on the proper course. We are not going back.

We have indicated to the people that we do have a long-term financial plan, we have indicated to the people that we have a plan to reduce the deficit, and those are two important things that the people of this Province wanted to see. They wanted to make sure that we were going to bring down the debt and they wanted to make sure that we had an organized and planned way to do that.

We talk about the kinds of things that we are spending our money on. Well, I want to talk about some of the facts. I do not want to be getting into the rhetoric. I do not want to be sort of assuming and implying things that are going to be done or not going to be done. I do not want to be spreading rumours or fearmongering. I want to talk about the facts.

When I look at some of the things that have come down from this government in our recent Budget, one of the things that I would like to talk about, because I have spent twenty-two years in the education field and the public and private system, I would like to talk a little bit about what our Minister of Education did in terms of the tuition freeze. There was representation made by students to me and to many other members of this House about tuition and they wanted to see a tuition freeze. They have a lot of debt. They have indicated that they are struggling with their debt load and we made a commitment, as a government, that we would freeze the tuition for the students of Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic for the rest of our mandate. That was a move that we made that the students were very happy for. I have had many students who live in St. John's Centre indicate to me that they feel that was a positive step by this government.

The money of the Province is being spent, the money of the people is being spent, and it is being spent to help the people. That is just one small example of how we are doing that. Our tuition rates in this Province are approximately 40 per cent below the national average. I am proud to say that, and we should be proud as a government that we are able to do that for the students that we have, who are willing to make the commitment and the sacrifice to commit to achieving a post-secondary education so that they can be better contributing members to this society, pay taxes, and help the rest of us by contributing financially to what we are all about here.

We also talked about in our Budget, again from an education perspective, the Adult Basic Education Program. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, from my work for the last twenty-two years prior to coming into this House, that there is certainly a need for basic literacy in this Province. I see it every day since I have been in this House. I deal with people who have literacy issues. This government, in the Budget that was brought down by our Minister of Finance, has brought in an additional $230,000 to assist with that problem of literacy levels, and it brings the total funding to $530,000.

We are committed to ensuring that people have the skills and the knowledge and the attributes necessary to be able to lead productive lives and to be able to go on and better themselves and contribute to society. That is what this government is doing with its money. That is how we are benefitting the people of this Province, and that is how we are spending the people's money. People need to be helped, they need to be helped in many ways, and we figured out some ways that we are going to do that.

I also want to talk about our K to 12 system. There is $26 million being provided for school infrastructure. In St. John's Center are some of the oldest schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, and some of them are in very poor shape. It did not happen over the last seventeen months, it did not happen on our watch, it happened over a good many number of years and it happened because of neglect and it happened because of poor financial resources. This government has made a commitment of $26 million. We want to ensure that there is enough money available so that our students can go to school and be in safe schools and be in warm schools, and are able to focus on what they should be focusing on, which is the learning that is taking place in the classroom with the teachers, and not have to worry about moving classrooms because there are leaks coming down or holes in the roofs.

We have also invested fifty-two more units back into the school system, and those fifty-two units are going to be units that are going to help in terms of our music, our education, and our cultural programs, that this government has brought forward into the K to 12 system; fifty-two new positions that we need.

Those are things, I think, the people want to see their money spent on, those are things that the people of this Province want to see this government invest in, and those are the things that I, as the Member for St. John's Center, want to see this government do as well. I am glad that we did it.

I also want to talk about the $1 million that we provided for physical education equipment in our schools. It has been mentioned in this House before, and it certainly has been discussed many times outside of this House, about the fact that our children in this country, in this Western Hemisphere, and certainly in this Province, do not have enough physical activity. We have an obesity problem; we have a health problem. That problem in the early years leads to a whole lot of other issues in later years. That is why our health budget is consuming 50 per cent of the overall budget of this government and of the people of this Province.

We need to do something about that. We need to target the young people. We need to make sure that the young people are given alternatives and given healthy choices, and by investing $1 million into the physical education equipment that students have available to them we will hopefully be able to combat some of the problems that they face later in life in terms of their health.

I also want to talk about - because it is near and dear to my heart as well - the provincial Victim Fines Surcharge, the Victim Services Program that we brought in for children, $255,000. This government committed $255,000 to create a new Victim Services Program for children.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: The most vulnerable of the vulnerable. That is exactly right, I say to my hon. colleague, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, and we have that happen every day. We see that happen every day, so I am glad that we were able to bring in those kinds of initiatives.

I realize, Mr. Chair, that our time is getting short. I have many other things that I would like to speak about. I know I will have an opportunity to come back, but I just want to make sure that the people of the Province, the people who are listening to this, understand that their money is being spent wisely by this government. We are investing it wisely. We are making sure that it goes to the people who need it, and we are going to continue to do that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see that my time is short, but if I can just have a couple of minutes.

Are you planning to have a vote today?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HARRIS: No.

It is not two minutes to five. If we are going to debate this tomorrow, perhaps I could speak then. That makes more sense. We are nearing the hour of close, but I do want to say a few words about this bill now before the House, which is designed to pay off this amount of money in relation to The Rooms and other expenditures. I think the real issue is about how the public debt operates, what the cost of it is to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, and whether this is really necessary, so I would like to do that on tomorrow when we next resume debate on this issue.

Given the hour, I would seek to adjourn debate, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It now being just a couple of minutes to five and, it being Wednesday, we normally adjourn at five, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. E. BYRNE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

I move that the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do now adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 in the afternoon.

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