April 12, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 9


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome some very special visitors to our House, and indeed to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very pleased to have in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, Betty and Rolly Fox, Terry Fox's parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: They are accompanied by Darrell and Fred Fox, Terry's brothers, by Judith Alder, Terry's sister, and by Doug Alward, who accompanied Terry on the Marathon of Hope.

By agreement, we have comments to be made by the hon. the Premier, by the Leader of the Opposition, and by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark an occasion of great pride for this Province and this country. Twenty-five years ago today, a brave, tenacious and spirited young man began a journey that would capture the hearts, the minds and the souls of the entire world. Today we mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Marathon of Hope, and we pay tribute in this House to a truly great Canadian, Terry Fox.

I am truly delighted that Terry's family has returned to the place where their beloved son's journey began all those years ago, and I welcome them to our Legislature this afternoon. It is an honour and a privilege to have them join us today.

Mr. Speaker, Terry Fox was only eighteen when he was diagnosed with bone cancer. Not long after, he made a selfless decision that would result in hundreds of millions of dollars being raised to help others like him around the world. This brave young man would proceed to win the hearts of the people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, across the country and around the world, with his courage and determination to raise money for cancer research.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, Minister Whalen represented the Province at a ceremony to celebrate the life of Terry Fox and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Marathon of Hope. I had the honour and the privilege several years back to chair the Marathon of Hope, so I know first-hand what a wonderful and emotional event this is for all involved, and I had the privilege of meeting Mrs. Fox at that particular point in time, several years ago. We won't date ourselves, Mrs. Fox, but it was a while ago; put it that way.

At today's ceremony, a fitting new monument to this remarkable young man was unveiled at the very place where he dipped his foot in the ocean to begin his cross-country run on this day in 1980.

I can also say that the stadium in St. John's, the new facility that was opened some time ago, is named Mile One, and I was involved in naming that facility. Every time I talk about it, I talk about Mile Zero. This facility is within a mile of that particular point. Terry's name also gets mentioned in conjunction with the name of that facility, but it was part of his effort, of course, that was intricately involved in naming the facility Mile One, so every time you hear it in the future keep that in mind.

The Province and the City of St. John's joined the Terry Fox Foundation and the Fox family to celebrate the accomplishments and legacy of this determined young man - a man who remains a role model and Canadian icon.

It is hard to believe it has been twenty-five years since Terry Fox set out on his Marathon of Hope. I know we will never forget the image of his broad smile and look of determination running along the side of the Trans-Canada Highway in the rain and the fog - the same fog, of course, that you see today and have seen since you joined us here yesterday. It was a moment in history that will be forever remembered and treasured.

His dream was very simple. He wanted to raise money for cancer research, and he achieved that goal beyond the wildest dreams of those who were on hand that very first day at St. John's Harbour.

To date, more than $360 million has been raised in his name since April 12, 1980.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Terry Fox Runs are held every year around the world to keep the dream alive and to find a cure for cancer.

In this Province, the legacy of Terry Fox lives on through the Terry Fox Cancer Research Lab at Memorial University. This lab opened in 1989, thanks to the money that Terry Fox's name has raised. The research conducted there has made a significant contribution to the effort to find ways of controlling cancer.

Researchers at the lab have identified a gene that kills cancer cells when it is deactivated. This discovery could lead to the development of a drug to control the gene and, in turn, control certain types of cancer. Researchers are also working on a novel molecular-based treatment for ovarian cancer.

The researchers at the lab have been very successful in obtaining research funding to carry out their work. Terry Fox knew the importance of raising money for cancer research. His life was cut short, but his legacy is ensuring that his dream stays alive.

The Royal Canadian Mint has also unveiled a new dollar coin bearing Terry Fox's image. This too is fitting, given Terry's goal to raise $1 from every Canadian to help find a cure for cancer.

As Canadians, and as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we will be eternally grateful to the Fox family for Terry's contribution to cancer research and for giving cancer patients hope.

As a Province, we are very, very proud to be part of today's celebration of Terry Fox and the twenty-fifth anniversary of his Marathon of Hope, and to have his family with us in St. John's to honour his legacy.

I encourage all members of this hon. House to go see the new monument at the site where the Marathon of Hope began, and to remember the significant contribution of this young man, who is truly a Canadian hero.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate this opportunity, on behalf of our caucus, to welcome the family members to our gallery in our democratic House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a great pleasure to see them here. I am delighted to see them here.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that Terry Fox - there is no doubt about it, history has already recorded it - has accomplished something rare and unique. In fact, he captured the hearts of a whole nation and made all of us part of his own personal dream. That is an absolute fact. That is what has happened in this country.

I recall teaching in Central Newfoundland at the time, teaching a group of teenagers in junior high school and high school when he came through our part of the Province. They were all teenagers then. They are forty-year-olds now, active members of the community. I can tell you, at that time they were absolutely captivated and enthralled by this young man and an absolute demonstration of unbelievable courage in the face of real diversity, real challenge, but courage in the face of that particular challenge and adversity, I should say.

I can tell you this, to this day those same people, their parents, the other members of the community, they organize and participate in Terry Fox runs today, twenty-five years later. There are not that many things which happen in individuals' lives that make that kind of a true and lasting and deep and abiding impression. This was one of those historic things. He is basically a hero to all of us in the country and continues to be so.

I say to the family, you will forgive us, we have a habit in Newfoundland and Labrador, because he came here, because he started here, we think he is ours. I know he started someplace else, he was born elsewhere, but in Newfoundland and Labrador we are so proud of the fact that courageous young man started his trek, his journey of hope, the Marathon of Hope, right here, that I hope you will forgive us for claiming him as part of our own.

So, I can tell you that his legacy has been proven, it has lived on and will continue to do so. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, to join with the Premier today and encourage everyone to visit the site, to visit that new site that was unveiled today, and to keep the legacy and the dream alive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased as well to have an opportunity to speak publicly to the Fox family. I was there this morning, in my capacity as Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, where it all began twenty-five years ago. As Leader of the New Democratic Party, on behalf of my colleague and my party, I do want to say that we are all tremendously proud of what began here and what was accomplished by Terry Fox twenty-five years ago today.

Many young people, and not just young people, have been inspired by what Terry Fox did from his example. In the face of adversity, he made a positive choice to do something that no one else had ever done before. In fact, listening over the last couple of days to commentators, athletes, sports writers, said they could not believe that someone could actually accomplish, whether they had two feet or one foot, what Terry Fox set out to do on his own motivation twenty-five years ago. He has given hope to so many, not only by raising funds for cancer, but also by his example he has changed many lives in a much more positive direction.

When paused to think about, what is it that caused a young man to be like that? Where did he get his strength of character, his determination, his courage? When you think about that, I think part of the answer, from what we have seen over the last twenty-five years, has to come from the people who are sitting here in our gallery.

I said to Mr. and Mrs. Fox this morning - to thank them for what they have done, because they have - not only has the Marathon of Hope gone on around the world, but they have succeeded in keeping him alive as a person for all of us. I think that is a tremendous accomplishment, and I know that his character, his determination, his courage and his actions come from a wonderful source in a great family.

So, not only is Terry Fox a great Canadian, as has been mentioned, and we all support that notion, but he obviously comes from a great family that has demonstrated, for the past twenty-five years, their commitment to their own Marathon of Hope. When we think of a marathon as twenty-six miles, there has now been almost a marathon of years since this started, and I am sure that this will continue, a great long Marathon of Hope started by your son, your brother. We believe this is a very astounding, positive contribution to all the people of Canada.

I want to thank you for it, and thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of people suffering from cancer in this Province, in this country, and around the world.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank the Fox family for coming to our House today and accepting our invitation. I apologize for them, that they have a very busy schedule and that they have an appointment, I do believe, at two o'clock outside of the Legislature.

Again, thanks for coming and sharing this special day with the Members of the Parliament of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I give notice and, by leave, move the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Resource Committee: Department of Business; Department of Environment and Conservation; Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; Department of Natural Resources; and Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Further, Mr. Speaker, that the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Social Services Committee: Departments of Education, Health and Community Services, Justice, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Further, Mr. Speaker, that the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Government Services Committee: Departments of Finance, Government Services, Transportation and Works, the Public Service Commission, and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I further move that the membership for the Resource Committee be as follows: Mr. Harry Harding, Member for Bonavista North; Mr. Gerry Reid, Member for Twillingate & Fogo; Ms Charlene Johnson, Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; Mr. Ray Hunter, Member for Windsor-Springdale; Mr. Kevin O'Brien, Member for Gander; Ms Judy Foote, Member for Grand Bank; and Mr. Eddie Joyce, Member for Bay of Islands.

The membership for the Government Services Committee be comprised as follows: Mr. Fabian Manning, Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; Mr. George Sweeney, Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; Mr. Shawn Skinner, Member for St. John's Centre; Mr. Paul Oram, Member for Terra Nova; Mr. Bob Ridgley, Member for St. John's North; Mr. Wally Andersen, Member for Torngat Mountains; and Mr. Oliver Langdon, Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, that the membership of the Social Services Committee be comprised as follows: Mr. Ross Wiseman, the Member for Trinity North; Mr. Roland Butler, the Member for Port de Grave; Ms Kathy Goudie, the Member for Humber Valley; Mr. Terry French, the Member for Conception Bay South; Mr. Clyde Jackman, the Member for Burin-Placentia West; Ms Yvonne Jones, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; and Mr. Kelvin Parsons, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. SPEAKER: A motion has been made, with leave, to appoint the Estimates Committee and the members thereto.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), we give notice that on Private Members' Day, tomorrow, the motion already on the Order Paper by the Member for Grand Bank dealing with health care on the Burin Peninsula will be the order of the day.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has notice of the following members' statements for this afternoon: a statement by the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West; a statement by the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; a statement by the hon. the Member for Lake Melville; a statement by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; and a statement by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to offer congratulations to the organizers and participants of the Burin Peninsula Regional Drama Festival which was held this past weekend.

Drama is a most exciting part of the school curriculum and is an extracurricular activity that receives tremendous support from the entire Burin Peninsula. Each night sees packed houses and extraordinary performances put off by the talented youth on the Burin Peninsula.

Although not from my district, but from the District of Grand Bank, I congratulate the cast of John Burke High School whom, I believe, had the winning performance this year; however, the winner in such an event are all those who participated in the festival. Meeting new friends and participating along side of and for their peers will prove to be one of the most memorable experiences of these young people, of their school lives.

Mr. Speaker, I offer congratulations to everyone but, in particular, I commend the students, teachers and staff who put so much time in organizing these events and I ask all hon. members to join me in passing along our congratulations.

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 congratulate the Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor who, this year, are celebrating their fortieth year of providing of a centre stage to showcase the vast array of musical talent in our region.

Following an exciting week of performances by our very talented young people, I am delighted to congratulate all participants and highlight the major award winners for this year's festival.

Ryan Dean was presented the Abitibi-Consolidated Award for the Most Outstanding Performance of the festival. Alana Noftall was the recipient of the Bernice Edwards Memorial Award for the Best Piano Performance. Margaret Barker received multiple awards which included the Laura Blackmore Award for Best Solo Performance in Newfoundland Folk Music, the Effie Pike Memorial Award for the Best Performance in Solo Speech, and the Hennessey Memorial Rose Bowl for Best Solo Performance in Junior Competition, fourteen years and under.

Adriaan Mulder was presented the Greco Pizza Donair Award for Best Performance in Junior Piano, and Megan Warren was the recipient of the Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor $2,000 Scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the award winners as well as congratulating the Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor on another successful music festival.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in the House today to honour and congratulate the exceptional talent of the Mokami Players of Happy Valley-Goose Bay who attended the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Drama Festival which was held in Grand Falls-Windsor from March 26 to April 2, and took home seven - Mr. Speaker, seven - awards, including: the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival Award for best presentation of a full length play; the Chrissi Andrews Memorial Award for best performance by a woman - Ms Meryl Strachan; the Reg Harte Memorial Award for best supporting performance by a man - Mr. Phillip Matz; the Thompson Trophy best actors under twenty-one; the Yanael Queval - DA Matthews Memorial Scholarship for $500 for the study of arts went to Mr. David Goudie; the Allan R. Hillier Award for best costume, Mary Horne and Kathleen Hicks; the Harvey Rose Bowl Award for best visual presentation; the OZ FM Award for best sound, Northern Mosiac. Honourable mention for set design; honourable mention to Mr. Ian Feltham, Reg Harte Memorial Trophy.

Elizabeth Rex was directed by Mr. Tim Borlase, and I would like to take this opportunity to say congratulations to him for his continued exceptional effort to the arts in Labrador. Mr. Borlase was the heart and soul of this presentation, and I ask all hon. members to congratulate the Mokami Players on such a great performance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Caitlin Coady of Winterland Road in the District of Grand Bank on winning big at the 2005 Provincial Airlines Provincial Figure Skating Championship.

Caitlin, age thirteen, and a member of the Marystown Ice Crystal Figure Skating Club, brought home a gold and a silver medal from the competition. Caitlin placed first in the Novice Ladies Short program and second in the Novice Ladies Free program. Based on Caitlin's great performance in the competition, she has been invited to perform in several ice shows throughout the Province.

Skate Canada Newfoundland and Labrador hosted the competition at the E.J. Broomfield Memorial Arena in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with over 170 skaters participating in the event from across the Province.

Caitlin is the daughter of Ed and Celine Coady.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Caitlin and her parents and extending best wishes for future competitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize many caring individuals from my district and the surrounding area who recently took the time and spent their dollars to help the health care system in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago on March 5, the Town of Shearstown hosted the Run for the Janeway 2005. During this extremely worthwhile event, approximately 500 individuals rode their skidoos and ATVs to support this project. At the end of the day, over $80,000 was raised for the Janeway. This is a tremendous amount and I am sure the dollars will be spent in the right place to ensure sick children in this Province receive the treatment that they deserve, Mr. Speaker.

The Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation motto for this year is: Putting Smiles Where They Belong, and how fitting this is. I believe that the dollars raised will help to bring about a few more new smiles at the Janeway Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the volunteers who organized this event and indeed, thank all those who attended, even members in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, who took part in our project. Without them, the event could not have been the success that it was.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update my hon. colleagues on: Into the North, a project of the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada, or the FWIC. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to report that the Women's Policy Office is contributing $5,000 to this very worthy effort.

Into the North is intended to help women and children and to improve the lives of families in Northern Canada. Our Labrador communities of Hopedale and Sheshatshui were the first to be selected. Hopedale has approximately 610 residents; 250 are eighteen or under. Sheshatshui, which is in the process of becoming a First Nation Reserve, has approximately 1,300 residents. Many in these two isolated communities strive to live their traditional lifestyle on the land in harmony with nature.

However, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues on both sides of the House are aware, the people of our Aboriginal communities face many challenges, such as: teen pregnancy; access to infant and early childhood care; access to medical care; family violence; substance abuse and unemployment.

Last summer both myself and the Premier had the opportunity to see and hear about these challenges first-hand. We visited many communities on the North Coast of Labrador, including Hopedale. I have also had the opportunity, and pleasure, to speak several times with Anastasia Qupee, chief of the Innu Band of Sheshatshui.

This government recognizes the many needs that exist in Labrador's Aboriginal communities and how necessary this kind of support is to help these communities move forward.

Government has recently announced several initiatives to benefit this region, including $250,000 for additional social workers; $70,000 to reopen a group home for adolescents; $210,000 to continue supporting family resource programs; $100,000 to target community based awareness and education activities for violence prevention, and $70,000 for a women's shelter in Hopedale.

The $5,000 I am announcing today, in addition to other monies raised by the FWIC, will be used to meet a list of needs identified by the community leaders of Hopedale and Sheshatshui. These include funding for nutritional food, water and supplies for new moms and their children; funding for breakfast programs; supplies for women's shelters; books for children and women; educational resources and baby items.

FWIC is now in the process of collecting the money and items which have been donated and expects to have them delivered to this Province in July. I would like to thank the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada once again for their interest in providing support to our northern region. I wish them well on their project and all the good works being done by the various Women's Institute branches in this Province and across the country.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement, and also today to commend the Federated Women's Institute of Canada for choosing communities in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and two Aboriginal communities in the North, to invest their time and their money in terms of helping these communities.

I also want to commend the minister. In her statement she outlined investments that they have made in Northern Labrador, both in social workers, in family resource centres and education activities. I think government should invest in the social well-being and the social fiber of communities in our Province, both rural and urban, no matter where they are. I also want to say to the minister and her government that this does not negate the responsibility of government to still deal with very crucial issues that face our northern communities; the alarming suicide rate that is experienced in our young population, the growing dependency on solvent and drug and alcohol abuse in all of these communities, and the fact, Mr. Speaker, that still many women are confronted with sexual and physical abuse in our Aboriginal communities on a daily basis.

I want to encourage the minister and her government today to take a good look at the Budget she just brought down and increase funding to violence prevention initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador so that these programs can continue to reach into communities like this that so very well need it. I also want to ask you, Minister, to put more effort and more emphasis and more lobby towards the federal government so that we can start healing our Aboriginal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador because they themselves have negated their responsibility by sending our young people all across the country for treatment, but not putting healing centres in Labrador and in their communities and programs there where they belong, and, as the minister, I see that as your responsibility to do that lobby and to make sure those investments are made where they are needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement, and we, too, would like to be associated with applauding the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada for taking the initiative that they have taken.

I also say to the minister, the $5,000 that has been allocated by her government I think falls far short of the amount of money that should be put into programs like this. We are looking at the numbers that the minister gave here today of 2,000 people and we are looking at $5,000. Mr. Speaker, that is inadequate. The bigger issue, of course, is the need for the Province to commit to our Aboriginal communities and to areas in the northern parts of our Province to begin concentrating on training and educating the people in our communities to be able to go back to their own communities, among their own people, areas where they want to live, where they want to work, and are solutions to the problems that exist rather than continually having a turnover of workers who are coming in from other areas and not familiar with the cultural issues and other things. These are some of the things that I would ask the minister to consider and concentrate on, for the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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.

Mr. Speaker, on an Open Line program on Friday morning, the Premier, once again, demonstrated his arrogance and his dictatorial approach when telling crab harvesters to give up their fight and go back fishing. In case he does not recall it, I will read from the transcript: I would suggest to the FFAW, to the fishermen, that they get back out on the water, they start fishing. That is my advice to them.

He did not seem to remember he said that yesterday. Yesterday, in a media scrum outside this House, Mr. Speaker, the Premier used even more inflammatory language that will no doubt continue to incite fish harvesters in this Province.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why is he refusing, why does he continue to refuse, to fulfill his own promise to consult with fish harvesters and their union before implementing production quotas, and why is he refusing to treat these individual business people with the same respect as every other business person in the Province expects and deserves?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition was present yesterday when I indicated what the minister has already indicated publicly, that government is certainly prepared to meet with the fishermen. We have already said so publicly.

What we have said is that the pilot project decision has been made and it will be a pilot project that will be in place for two years; however; we are certainly prepared to sit down and have a discussion, and the minister is open to do that and has said so quite clearly.

If we are going to talk about inciting people, there is certainly no attempt by this government to incite people. What we feel is, we have a duty to tell the fishermen the facts, to tell them exactly where we are, and I think we have an obligation to them to state it very clearly.

Incitement is a statement by the Leader of the Opposition who said on an Open Line last night: If I was one of those harvesters, I would be furious at this point in time. I think they are a lot more restrained than I would be if I was one of them, and I think they should be commended for that.

So, if there is anyone trying to incite a riot or trying to incite any trouble here, it is the Leader of the Opposition. That is who is doing it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, we understand now the Premier is not going to answer any questions about why he refuses to live to his commitments to consult first.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier stated, and he just restated again in his answer to the first question, that he and the minister and the government are willing to negotiate with the crab harvesters. Well, why don't they answer the letter from the FFAW, pick up the phone and call them and arrange for the meeting instead of allowing this to go on?

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if you are truly committed to sitting down in a meaningful discussion and negotiation with the fish harvesters, why won't the Premier, Mr. Speaker, delay the implementation of a pilot project - and obviously if it is a pilot project they do not know if it is going to work or not; they are going to try to find out. So, rather than insist upon it now just because he has made a decision and he is not going to change his mind, why not delay the implementation, Mr. Speaker, and have a true negotiation to see if this makes any sense?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a very short memory. When he was in government and he sat in this seat as Premier of the Province, he indicated during debate on the Lower Churchill in 2002, his very words are: The fact of the matter is, the government makes these kinds of decisions. Then we explain and describe them to the people of the Province.

He fully recognizes, as hon. members opposite recognize, that when they were members of Cabinet that government makes decisions and goes out and explains them to the people of the Province.

I also remind hon. members and, of course, the people of the Province, that when we issued our Blue Book before the election, over a year and a half ago, we stated exactly what we felt was necessary with the fishery. The industry must be restructured and managed to avoid the disasters of the past and adapt to the opportunities of the future. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to make this stable and sustainable to the best of our ability, and that is what we are doing.

We are prepared to make decisions and move forward; but these decisions, we are saying, are not irreversible decisions. This is a pilot project. It is something we are going to look at for two years. We think it is the best solution. It is a solution that has been recommended by some very knowledgeable people in this industry, and we are following that advice. That is exactly what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Convenient for the Premier, too slick by half, I say. He also stated clearly, before any decisions were taken with respect to this issue - not another issue, this issue - he would consult fully with the FFAW and the harvesters themselves, and both he and his minister have admitted in this House and elsewhere that they have not done that at all. All they are asking is for a promise to be a promise, I say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has continuously stated publicly that by implementing production quotas he is only following the recommendations contained in the Dunne report. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. If he wants to read it, it is on page 149, recommendation number 9.12, which says that, "Development of a proposal for Individual Raw Material Shares in a given species should proceed when at least 3/4 of the active processing licence holders involved agree to such an arrangement and they can satisfy the Minister that there are, or will be, no substantive and reasonable objections from the plant workers and harvesters."

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: How can he expect anyone to believe him when he stands up and says, I am following the recommendation, and still turn around and know that there are objections and he is flying completely in the face of the recommendation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct in what he reads from the Dunne Report. It says, "...that there are, or will be, no substantive and reasonable objections from plant workers and harvesters." We understand what the substantive and reasonable objections are from fishermen and plant workers. We understand that it is related to price, we understand that it is related to disclosure of market conditions, we understand that it is related to permanent transfers, we understand that it is related to corporate concentration in the industry, and we said, on every one of those, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to sit down and discuss how to handle those in moving forward with this approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty strange logic, that he says, we are following the recommendation. He just named four objections, and the recommendation says, don't do it if objections exist. He says, we are doing it anyway, and we will talk about it after. I guess it is not the minister's logic, it is the Premier's logic. We know that in this Legislature better than anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, a final question, and this is for the Premier of the Province. The crab fishery is supposed to be up and running, supposed to be underway, and instead, due to the Premier's heavy-handed approach, I'm not changing my mind - that is what he said again today on the public airways - fish plants in the Province remain idle and plant workers are not working because the crab is not being harvested.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Since you personally have created this mess, what are you personally planning to do to see that the fishery could start, the crab could be harvested, and the plant workers might actually get some work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the decision to fish does not rest with me. It rests with the people who decide whether they are going to fish or whether they are not going to fish. If that creates difficulty for the plant workers, that is unfortunate and we recognize that. In fact, as a government, we will make sure, under those circumstances, that we look out for the best interests of the plant workers. We are certainly prepared to do that.

My recommendation on Open Line, my recommendation here in the House, and my recommendation on a couple of occasions outside this House, is that the fishermen start to fish. There is a lot of product in the water. It is a big industry. It is important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important to the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador particularly. We are very sensitive to what is going on out there. We are doing our best to turn around an economy that was left in a mess by the hon. gentleman and his group opposite. As a result, we are doing whatever we can to turn it around. This, in our opinion, is a good, logical decision to move forward, but I cannot force people to fish, nor do I intend to force them to fish. If they decide they are not going to, government cannot do anything about that but we will certainly protect the plant workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, he is saying that he cannot force them to fish but he is forcing everything else down their throats.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries. This minister is intent, and content, with giving production quotas to his processor friends in the crab sector but says he cannot do something similar for the people of Harbour Breton. The people of Harbour Breton are in Ottawa as I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, along with their MHA, seeking a solution to their problem.

I ask the minister: What formal representation have you made, or has the Premier made, to Ottawa with regard to a quota for Harbour Breton? If you have made one, I ask you to table the correspondence that you have had with your colleague in Ottawa.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to talk about people with processor buddies, maybe he should look at his seat mate because I certainly do not have any processor buddies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we have provided the people of Harbour Breton with access to $250,000 to develop a business plan for their area, to try and identify the opportunities and try to identify a future for their community as it relates to fish processing, aquaculture, quota acquisition and what have you.

We have indicated consistently, from last fall right on through until today, Mr. Speaker, that we are willing to work with them to develop that plan and we have made $250,000 available. When they have written their plan, we will support what comes out of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, if he wants to cast aspersions on my seat mate here, he should talk to the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the FFAW and the plant workers around this Province are lobbying the federal government for an early retirement package. I ask the minister if this provincial government is willing to cost share such a package, and what formal representation have you made to Ottawa on their behalf with regard to early retirement? I would like for you to table all written information and all written correspondence that you have had with Ottawa.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the FFAW and plant workers in this Province are well aware of the provincial government's position on early retirement. We have said it for the past year and a half or two years that we would support an early retirement program that was part of a rationalization plan for the industry. We have said that time and time again both to the industrial council of the union, to their annual convention, and in various meetings that I have had and the Premier has had with representatives of the FFAW. When we can put that plan together, and when the federal government are prepared to come on side and fund it, then we will look at it. Until then, that is where the situation is.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister, I guess, is confirming that he has no written confirmation of his correspondence with the federal government on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, or the Premier, in her absence, because he heads up the Cabinet committee on Harbour Breton.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is on record as saying that the Province is prepared to contribute a reasonable level of funding for projects in Harbour Breton, but her commitment is contingent on funding from the federal government. I ask the minister, or the Premier: What representation have you made to the federal government on behalf of the people of Harbour Breton, and could you table that correspondence?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is out of the Province today because she is representing me at a trade mission in Chicago, so I would like to speak to this.

I have been present at meetings with the delegation from Harbour Breton. I have had several discussions with the member for Fortune-Hermitage, indicated to him and to the committee that we stand solidly behind them, that we are prepared to do whatever we can do. I do not have the letter with me today. I happened to see a letter that was going to that particular committee - Mr. Vardy - which was sent out last week by the minister, setting out exactly what we are prepared to do. We are being very positive on this. We are being very proactive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I would be allowed to finish, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have given a very firm commitment to the people of Harbour Breton that we will be there to support them. That was told to them in a meeting in my office over two months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Two weeks ago the Deputy Minister of Health toured the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor and viewed first-hand the deplorable conditions and human suffering, and he has since reported his findings to government.

Mr. Premier, the time is over for talking. The case has been made. The homework is done. You, yourself, said this issue is high priority on your agenda. Mr. Premier, why don't you end this anguish? Why don't you stand on your feet today and announce funding for the new cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor? Would you answer me that question, please?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The deputy minister and officials did visit the site. They did report back. Mr. Speaker, they reported back to the department and, as of yesterday, the last information came in from the Central Regional Integrated Health Authority. That information is now being analyzed by the department, and very soon now a report is going to be brought to government so a decision can be made on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest and certainly the biggest disappointments in this year's Budget for the people of Labrador, in particular the youth, was that there was no funding allocated for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area.

My question is to the Premier. Premier, how could your government completely ignore and turn your backs on the children, the youth, the future of Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am delighted the member has asked the question. Certainly, it is something that was considered throughout the Budget process. It was given a high priority, but at the escalated cost of some $4.1 million, with a $300,000 commitment from the federal government, that is what this Budget said no to.

Mr. Speaker, since then I have met with the Wish Fish Foundation. As a matter of fact, I am heading there again tomorrow. We have been doing a lot of work throughout the department to look at some options, to keep the file open. We understand how important it is to the people in that area, and we are willing to look at those options. I am willing to keep working with the groups in Labrador to find a reasonable - and we are definitely going to look at a more substantial contribution than $300,000 from the federal government, and we will pursue that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say that the government did not need federal assistance for a ball park, and millions of dollars to pay off The Rooms here in St. John's.

I will ask this of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs. Sir, you advised the people of Labrador, through the media, that you were meeting with officials from the federal government to discuss these urgent matters. Can you today update the people in this House, and in Labrador, as to what took place in that important meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, I am delighted you asked the question because the day after, within twenty-four hours, I met with five federal ministers and on each agenda - many issues were being discussed and I can tell him, with four of the ministers that the agenda of the Mealy Mountain Auditorium was on that. I have had some very good discussions with those ministers and have been in contact since, by the way, and I will be updating the Wish Fish Foundation tomorrow. I feel that the federal government, by the way - to state this today - that the federal government also believes that a $300,000 commitment on that facility was not fair and they certainly have their doors open. I am going to keep it open, Mr. Speaker. I am going to work with the federal government, work with the people in Labrador, and we are going to see if we can get a resolve to this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. On April 21, and again on May 3 of last year, the Minister of Fisheries made a written and specific commitment to carry out extensive consultations on both production quotas and other alternatives, such as an option system in the crab fishery. Does the Premier not realize that this written commitment is regarded as a promise, one that has so far been broken by the imposition of production quotas against the recommendation of the Dunne report and without consultation with the 10,000 people who are affected by this decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows and he has knowledge of the fishery; he has been involved with it for some considerable period, in my experience (inaudible), that this matter has been discussed extensively in this particular industry. Consultations have been extensive. The Dunne report, and Mr. Dunne himself, went around and had fifty meetings with people from over 100 communities. We have thirty-four members of caucus here who have all had consultations and discussions with people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just allow me to give an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has asked a question. The Premier is giving the answer. I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, there has been consultation. There have been lots of consultation. We have thirty-four members of our government. All of these people have had discussions with people in the industry. People have approached me and I have had discussions. The minister has a department; officials from his department have had discussions. This matter has been discussed quite a bit. So, it is not that it is a new issue. It is not something that came out of left field. It has been recommended by - several people have investigated it, and, as a result, we have made a discussion.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to remind visitors in our gallery that they are not to participate in any way or to show approval or disapproval for any comments that are made on the floor of the House. I ask you for your co-operation in that regard.

The hon. the Premier, just a moment to complete your answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have finished.

MR. SPEAKER: You have finished your answer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fishermen are angry in this Province because the Premier and the government will not listen to them and their concerns. Mr. Speaker, some processors last year supplied bait, advanced money and supplies to start up the fishing season, are now saying to fishermen: We are not doing that anymore because we don't have to. So, already, Mr. Speaker, the power is shifting to the processors.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier thought there was a cartel in the fishery a few years ago. Does he not know that his plan would give even more power to the fish processors, putting fishermen back a generation in their dealings with plant owners? Will he not change his mind and reconsider and consult further with the Fishermen's Union?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issues related to bait, services, price and what have you, can all be settled at the negotiating table. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have a Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. That is why we have a Fishermen's Union. That is why we have negotiations. That is what those things are supposed to be for; just as in the fishing industry, just the same as they are in every other industry in this Province. That is what the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act is all about. That is why there have been discussions over the winter with processors and the union about how to amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to improve the situation, to implement a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism. That, Mr. Speaker, is what it is all about.

For the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture across the way, I ask her if she remembers her comments from June 6, 2003? The current system may not be providing an equitable distribution of benefits. The destructive level of competition characteristic of this season must be brought under control. In this dispute, plant workers are being held hostage. Those are her words!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has said that he cannot make the fishermen -

MS JONES: I was not the one who sold them out. I did not sell them out when I was there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier. The Premier has said that he cannot make the fishermen fish. Does he think that he can make the fish plant owners supply bait to the fishermen, continue to operate and finance vessels in the absence of the Fisheries Loan Board? Does he think he can run the fishing industry when the fishermen and the plant workers are opposed to his plans?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all of these issues can be dealt with at the negotiating table. That is why we have a negotiating table. Now, Mr. Speaker, the people in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - and the people in the industry and the people in the Opposition have to ask themselves if they want a free market system in the fishery or if they want negotiations in the fishery. That is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker. I believe that they want a union and they want a fishing industry collective bargaining act that is strong enough to deal with their concerns. That is why we said we would move on that.

Mr. Speaker, last year when we proposed an auction, they were all against an auction. They do not want an auction and they do not want the collective bargaining to settle it. So, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't somebody say exactly what it is that they are prepared to live with and we will consider it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I suggested earlier, if the minister and the Premier would actually stop their high-handed approach and enter into an actual discussion lots of people would suggest to them how to fix this, but they have made up their minds and told them what to do. Then you are supposed to go and negotiate after you have taken away all of my particular authority.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question with respect to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Abitibi Consolidated issue. On March 15 the minister provided this House with an update regarding meetings that he held with Abitibi Consolidated in December month. Would the minister table in this House today, Mr. Speaker, any communication between Abitibi Consolidated and the provincial government regarding discussions related to future operations in Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor since that December meeting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, as soon as our discussions and negotiations conclude with Abitibi - which I suspect will be in the very near, near future - I would be happy, on behalf of government, to fully account for the discussions that we had, to table whatever documentation is necessary, but I will not do it at this point today because I am afraid that it may impinge or infringe upon the negotiations and discussions that we are having.

I will say this to the Leader of the Opposition, that when this issue arose, members of the union representing five locals at the Grand Falls Abitibi operation, members of the union and their representatives in Stephenville - I met with those individuals, I have met with community leaders, we are meeting with community leaders from Stephenville today. We have been very forthright in trying to achieve a solution. Our position is very clear. We want to see all if Abitibi's current operations remain in this Province and whatever we can do, reasonably, to ensure that happens, this government is absolutely prepared to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that maybe the Premier could learn from the Minister of Natural Resources about what a true consultation and discussion is, which is what is occurring in that particular department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, in his March 15 statement, the minister referred to an agreement to provide Abitibi-Consolidated with $1 million at the company's request. We have heard four, if not five, different answers since about the $1 million.

I would ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Has he, on behalf of the government, actually released the $1 million committed to Abitibi-Consolidated to offset the power rate increase for a period of sixty days, which is what he read in this Legislature, and will the minister release any written agreement pertaining to the commitments that the government made for that $1 million at the company's request?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we haven't heard four or five different versions. You have the one story from the one minister responsible, on behalf of the government, and that was me. What we have heard is the four or five different versions presented by the Leader of the Opposition. To what end, I have no idea and neither will I speculate.

The fact of the matter is this: When he was the Premier, he entered into a contract with Abitibi-Consolidated called the Interruptible B contract. In essence, they gave Abitibi $1.2 million for the possibility of having to interrupt their power, which never happened. Now, in essence, it was a $1.2 million subsidy. What we did is, we said yes, we would look at evaluating how we could assist, but we wanted something for it. We did not want to hand out one door $1.2 million without having something of value in that hand. What we got was all the intellectual property, engineering, environmental studies, that cost Abitibi money.

Now, to the question that he asked: Has any money been given? No, Mr. Speaker. We made the offer, they haven't accepted, and unless they do on our terms they will not be getting anything from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, the minister might like to check and see that the Interruptible power contract with respect to Abitibi in Stephenville was around prior to my time as Premier, and was continued on, and this government and this minister also continued with that for a full year because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, Abitibi-Consolidated has completed its sixty-day review. The board of Abitibi-Consolidated will be meeting soon, we understand, maybe even this week, to review and make decisions based on the sixty-day review carried out by their own officials. In December, the minister reported in this House that they had said to the government: We will close Stephenville unless we get the $1 million, get some help with the energy costs, and have a more profitable operation.

The question is this: Has the minister and the government been told what the results of the review are, and if Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor operations have a clear and secure future in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Fundamentally, let me address the question. The Leader of the Opposition must be in possession of different information than the government is, when he says that the review is complete. I have not been advised, nor has any member of government been advised, that the review is complete, that their decisions have been made. We are in a position right now of - we have no information related to: Is Stephenville going to continue? Is number seven going to shut down? Are they going to contract their operations?

Here is what we have said to Abitibi. Number one, that when it comes to Grand Falls operations, we will enforce to the letter of the law the consequences associated with Bill 27. In other words, if they close number seven machine, the moment that they do, we will strip them of all of their licences, which represents 60 per cent of their wood supply.

Secondly, on the issue related to Stephenville, the primary concern that Abitibi has with Stephenville is a power supply. Unlike Kruger, and unlike Abitibi in Grand Falls, they do not sit upon a power generating source such as the Exploits or the Humber.

Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to reach a power purchase agreement or some arrangement by where we can see not just one or two machines but all of Abitibi's current operations continue in Newfoundland and Labrador. The moment, the very moment, if this House is open, that we hear from Abitibi that they are changes being made, or whatever they may be, let me assure the House and the people of the Province that right here is where you will hear it first, not out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table for your information today the 2004 annual report for the Labour Relations Board. Copies have been forwarded for distribution to the members through the clerk.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2005-2006 to the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today, as I did last fall, to present a petition on behalf of the youth of Labrador, and today the signature names come from the community, from the youth, of Nain.

Mr. Speaker, it was very disappointing during the Budget, as I travelled throughout Labrador, when no funding was allotted for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area. Mr. Speaker, I guess when this government can turn around and pay off $45 million for The Rooms in the St. John's area - no doubt it will help all of the Province - the people in Labrador find it very difficult, why this government could not allot the funds that are required to build an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the disappointment was felt from one end of Labrador to the other, and the youth, as they approached me and other members throughout the community, found it very difficult to understand why a government that made so many promises to Labrador would not fulfill their dream by giving them an auditorium.

Mr. Speaker, I guess, when we look at the importance of what an auditorium meant to the people of the Upper Lake Melville area and all of Labrador, we find it very difficult to understand as we start to lose key people, people like Tim Borlase, who started the arts creative festival years and years ago. When you see people like these, Mr. Speaker, who we will lose, we can only understand what the future holds for the young people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, again today it is with great disappointment on behalf of the youth in Labrador that I rise to present this petition. Mr. Speaker, I will rise again tomorrow and the day after and in weeks to come to present this petition to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, let me say this to the government: They did not have to go to Ottawa to get clearance for the $45 million to pay off The Rooms, or to build other sports facilities in different parts of this Province. Yet they chose to hurt the people in Labrador, those who are most affected, Mr. Speaker, and that is our youth.

Mr. Speaker, I will rise again tomorrow, and in days and weeks to come, to present this petition on behalf of the young people in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of harvesters and plant workers in the areas of Port de Grave, Bryants Cove, Upper Island Cove, Bishop's Cove, and Cupids, out in my district and my neighbouring districts.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is based on where the government stated that it would consult before it acted, and would be inclusive when it consulted. We all know how the harvesters and the plants workers in this Province feel today. They are humbly asking this House of Assembly to urge the government to only impose production quotas if it is agree upon by the FFAW and the processors, as recommended in the Dunne Report.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two or three weeks we have heard about the process that was followed, and no doubt Mr. Dunne did travel this Province with regard to consultation. I think the message has been loud and clear, what he has returned to the government. It is not what we are hearing from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I have heard from plant workers in my area and around this Province who are not in agreement with it. As a matter of fact, I had a call from a lady this past weekend who lives in my district and is wondering what numbers she can call in Fort McMurray and other places looking for work, because she knows full well the work that took place in her plant last year will not be there this year. The harvesters have major concerns, Mr. Speaker. If you read the Dunne Report, it states very clearly that not all the processors were in agreement with this production quota, and it is stated very clearly.

Mr. Speaker, we hear the Premier today saying that a lot of consultation took place. He said, thirty-four members on that side of the House went out and consulted. I have to say, I am wondering what report the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde brought back when she consulted with her fishers, because I know what she received. I wonder what the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne brought back to the Premier when he consulted with his constituents. I know full well what they told him, and I believe that he brought it back. For the Premier to stand here today and say they consulted with the people in their districts and they received a good response, Mr. Speaker, is not telling it the way it is.

I think what we have seen demonstrated here in this House, over the last two or three days, shows full well - only last week we heard the member for Bonavista North say on Open Line, when he stated very clearly, that the fishers, the harvesters, in this Province were ill-informed by their unions. I do not believe for a minute that those people travel to this hon. House of Assembly day after day, or have meetings in different places, knowing that they are ill-advised by their union. I doubt it very much.

I stand today and I call upon the Premier, because I have heard the minister say that he has his mind made up. For awhile he was saying it was not him who decided, it was Cabinet, but someone had to bring it to Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries brought this proposal to Cabinet and, yes, it was voted on, but I humbly ask the Premier to seriously sit down with those people, not have a little chat with them about what is going to happen, and do what has to be done, Mr. Speaker.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the visitors in the gallery that they are not to participate -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sorry, I cannot engage in dialogue from the Chair to people who are in the gallery. That is totally inappropriate. I am sorry. I ask for your co-operation. The public are always welcome in this Chamber.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This House is in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Prior to the recess, the Speaker had spoken to the visitors in the gallery on a couple of occasions. Again, I remind the public that they are always welcome to our House. The Speaker has very few options in this regard. If there are disturbances in the galleries, the Speaker has the responsibility to make sure that order and decorum prevail in the House of Assembly. That is the tradition of our parliamentary system. The members who are elected to Parliament have a right to go about their business undisturbed. It would be a contempt of Parliament if members are disturbed in carrying out their elected responsibilities. Therefore, I ask visitors in the galleries for their co-operation, and also inform them that, if we should have to clear the galleries again this afternoon, the galleries will remain cleared for the balance of this sitting day.

We were dealing with petitions. I do believe there was one more petition I have some knowledge of.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Fortune, in my district, and other surrounding communities, in fact. This has to do with the FPI plant in Fortune. Unfortunately, what we are seeing happening with the FPI plant in Fortune is similar to what happened in Harbour Breton. My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that in light of what has gone down in Harbour Breton, and the lack of action, or the lack of interest by FPI in terms of their processing plant in Fortune, is what is in store for Fortune and all of the people who work there as well.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking rural Newfoundland here. Unfortunately, when you look at what is happening in our fishery, the impact on rural Newfoundland and Labrador is disastrous. If we do not see something happen, if we do not see the government get involved in trying to make sure that the big processors like FPI live up to their obligations - in this instance, FPI International - the obligation they have to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, what we are seeing here today by this company is a lack of empathy, no understanding whatsoever for the people who work in those plants.

We are not just talking about people who live in Fortune. We are talking about nine communities that are represented by the employees who work in that plant. They were told, if they voted in support of a proposal that was put forward that would see government allowing FPI to, in fact, sell off 40 per cent of its marketing arm, that, in fact, they would have some work. Today, what we are seeing is a few weeks' work down there, and the company has not even taken the redfish out of the water. That would have meant more work for the employees at the Fortune fish plant.

How can a company be allowed to get away with something like this, knowing full well it means the livelihood of hundreds of people, but, as well, you have so many businesses in rural Newfoundland that depend on people having a viable fishery? What we are seeing happening with FPI is nothing short of terrible, Mr. Speaker, because my fear is that we are going to see the end of Fortune. What I am told now is that when the concerned citizens committee met with FPI they were told, regardless of with or without government approving the sale of 40 per cent of their marketing division, that they will have no guarantee of employment for the fish plant in Fortune in 2006. So, very limited employment in the past little while, in 2005, and no guarantee of anything in 2006, so you know what is going to happen. We are going to see another Harbour Breton very shortly, and what comes after Harbour Breton? Well, we have Marystown, we have Bonavista.

We are concerned, and the people who signed this petition are concerned because they are calling on FPI and they are calling on the government to get involved, government in particular, to use the authority it has to enforce the FPI Act, and, in doing so, make sure that FPI lives up to its obligations, because it does have a moral responsibility to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and that has fallen by the wayside. In doing so, you are seeing people without jobs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Just leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave just to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you for leave, Mr. Speaker.

What I am seeing here is a lack of an appreciation by a corporation, FPI in particular, a failure by our government to speak up on behalf of the people it represents, and a lot of uncertainty in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Today it is Fortune and the nine communities represented by employees who work at the FPI plant in Fortune. Tomorrow it could be other parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a petition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a group of people from the New World Island area, which is in the District of Twillingate & Fogo, and it concerns the production quota system that the Minister of Fisheries is trying to impose upon the people, or the harvesters of the Province, against their wishes, Mr. Speaker.

The gist of the petition is that these people are calling upon the government to put this issue aside and only implement production quotas when it is agreed to by the harvesters of the Province, as Mr. Dunne said in the Dunne report in Recommendation 9.12. I think it is on page 162.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier today here in the House of Assembly when he talked about we have had enough consultation, and that Mr. Dunne travelled around the Province and he talked to a number of people. Well, he might be right about that, but I tell you that he did not speak to all the people in the Province and he did not speak to the vast majority of harvesters in the Province. I think we will all recognize that in what we have seen in the last few days, not only here in the House of Assembly but around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier did not say today, after all of those consultations that Mr. Eric Dunne had around the Province, the recommendation that he made to the government on this particular issue is that production quotas should only be brought in if and when it was agreed to by 75 per cent of the processors and that they could convince the government that the harvesters in this Province were onside. Well, I can tell the people of this House and I can tell the people of this Province that it is evident that the harvesters of this Province are not onside with what the government is trying to do. So, for the Premier to get up and try to pretend like these consultations happened and that the harvesters in this Province agreed with production quotas, Mr. Speaker, is something that is not completely true. In fact, it is just the opposite of that.

I also heard the Premier today talk about the thirty-four members on his side who held consultations with people in their own districts. Well, I can tell the Premier that I have held consultations in my district. In fact, I had 250 people a couple of Saturdays ago in my district attend a meeting at 1:00 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon and they asked for a show of hands of how many people in this room agree with production quotas. Not one raised their hand. How many disagree? Every single soul, I say, Mr. Speaker, said they were opposed to production quotas. I could talk at length of why they are, but I only have three minutes.

I went to Marystown and held a meeting with my colleague, the member who represents Fortune, and we had representatives, I think, of every community on the Burin Peninsula back three or four weeks ago. Again, with a show of hands, every soul in the room were adamantly opposed to production quotas. I attended a meeting with my colleague from Port de Grave in Bay Roberts a few weeks ago, every single soul again raised their hands in opposition to this. I have had calls, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. REID: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have had calls from Bay de Verde. I have had calls from La Scie. I have had calls from Triton. I have had calls from Bonavista, and I can go on and on and on in the districts that the Premier talked about today. Everyone of them, to the man and woman, Mr. Speaker, said they were opposed to this and to continue to fight for them and on their behalf in the House of Assembly, and I will, Mr. Speaker.

My time is limited to three minutes today but I will be back again tomorrow and the day after that until the government puts this aside and lives by the Dunne report and only implements production quotas if and when the harvesters of this Province agrees to them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that we are to Orders of the Day, are we?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

Motion 1, presented by the hon. the Minister of Finance, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. Essentially, I guess, is where we are beginning the debate on the Budget, which will last for seventy-five hours. For people who may not know about the debate itself, when we are debating the Budget it is on a wide variety of topics and matters. Any bill associated or motioned with the House dealing with finances allows any member the latitude to speak about essentially what he or she wishes to speak about.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 has been moved.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the gentleman in the gallery for his co-operation. I think I have addressed the issue before, that these issues and commentaries cannot come from the gallery. We wish to proceed with our Parliament of the day and the Chair recognizes the hon. the member, the critic, who is going to speak to the Budget.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was actually expecting the Minister of Finance to give some preliminary opening and that is why I was sort of -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible), but I will if you want me to.

MS THISTLE: No, I do not want you to. I have heard enough from you in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It appears to the Speaker that we are not getting the level of co-operation that we would expect from visitors in the gallery. If there should be any further disruptions whatsoever in the gallery the Speaker will have the galleries cleared and they will remain cleared for the balance of this day.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing today in response to the Budget that was delivered just a few short weeks ago. As we can see from the events of the past two days, there is a great deal of frustration in our Province and in, particularly, rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Most of the questions that were asked today in Question Period were directed to how the people are feeling in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They have a feeling that they are being deserted by this government, a government that was supposed to come into power - and they did, October 2003 - all full of promises, of being accountable, making promises, keeping promises. Not quite two years on the job and they are seeing a lot of those promises have eroded. They are being responded to: but I did not mean that, this is what I really meant. We are seeing that all over the Province.

Fisherpeople today are having a level of frustration that makes you stand up and say - these people that we see here today, everyone who is in the gallery that is here today represents probably half a dozen more that is in their family and even more than that in their extended families. They all have an obligation to provide for their families. They have an obligation - most of them are independent entrepreneurs. They have their own enterprise. They have bills to pay. Pretty soon a lot of them will have their EI run out, and you know what happens when the EI runs out. The bank knocks on your door, and you get the phone calls. You try to dodge these bills, but you cannot. You have to do something when the bills come to the door and the bill collector comes. They have pride. They have dignity. They do not want to be on the social services role. They have a business. They want to be able to maintain that business and provide for their families, and provide a future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

They were promised by this government that they would be able to come in and sit down and discuss this new policy before it was implemented, but they are finding out over the past few weeks and the past couple of days that this Premier, this government, is serious. When they say they are going to do something, you either fall in line or you are left behind. Simple! How can you have dialogue, interaction, negotiation with one side who already has their minds made up?

It is pointless for fisherpeople to come in and sit down with the Minister of Fisheries - because you are not going to see the Premier. All the leg work will be done by the Minister of Fisheries and he will then report to the Premier and say: Well, you know, we have a chance to patch this up, or will we leave it like it is? The Premier has been the official spokesperson on this issue in recent days. He made it quite clear on Friday, in his Open Line interview with Randy Simms, the host, that he had no intention of going back and doing anything other than what he said he was going to do. In fact, he was speaking for the Minister of Fisheries. He has been speaking for the Minister of Fisheries ever since Friday, all except that once instance when the Minister of Municipal Affairs got on the radio Thursday morning and he spoke for the Minister of Fisheries. I said: What is going on here, when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs gets up and speaks for the Minister of Fisheries? Certainly goodness, he is not that far away from a cell phone or a real phone that he can't phone in and put a lot of concerns at ease, that the people of the Province are suffering today.

We have seen how the anger level is rising and it is going to rise higher. It should not be, because it has to end at some point. If the Premier decides on holding his ground and not talking to the people of his own Province, the people who are the backbone of every rural community around this coastline, if he is going to stand his ground and not speak to those people and not find a way to iron out their situation, this anger level is going to escalate. There is no question about it.

We heard, and everybody heard - there are a lot of people who supported this Premier and this government and they had an impression that he was going to be accountable, he was going to be open and accountable on every direction that he took this government in. We are seeing, with the fishery issue, the crab industry today, that he has a closed mind on this issue. He has a closed mind on this issue, even though his Minister of Fisheries was willing, initially, to sit down and speak to the stakeholders and see, well, does this suit you, can we work out this problem. We have a pilot project here that we are going to try on the industry for the next two years. Let's get everybody sitting around the table. Before we say this is going to be policy, let everybody have their input so we can see where the bugs are, the problems, and iron them out.

Something happened from the time that letter was written by the Minister of Fisheries to now. The Premier had a change or heart or else he wasn't - I don't know what happened. He will have to answer that question. His policy now is carved in stone. He does not intend to move from that position. He is prepared to let the crab industry, this year, fall by the wayside. He is prepared to accept whatever economic consequences come from his decision. He is calling your bluff. There is no other reason. You are in a quandary. The whole Province is in a quandary.

I am from a paper district, Grand Falls-Buchans, but I can tell you one thing: We depend on fisherpeople in Grand Falls-Windsor to make our community viable. I bet you there is not one member here in this Legislature - there are forty-eight of us here - that does not depend on the fishing industry, the direct and indirect jobs that you give to us in the larger communities.

I do not know what the attitude is with this government. They are trying to downgrade rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the only thing I can figure, because if you look at what is happening - the most recent thing that happened was Friday - they rolled out a plan to merge and close out schools, but where are they closing them out? I do not think there are going to be too many schools closed in urban Newfoundland and Labrador. I think they are going to be made bigger. What they are going to do is actually close out schools in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are going to merge schools so children will either have to get on a bus and go further or they will have to find their way to go - some schools they cannot close out. There are about fifteen that are entirely remote and they cannot close them out. One of them, actually, is in my district, and it is Buchans. It is 105 kilometres from Grand Falls-Windsor and they cannot put a child on a bus and send that child to Grand Falls-Windsor. That is going to be too long of a run.

I did see in that report that they intend, in the future, if they cannot accommodate children in rural, remote locations, they are going to use the provincial bursary scholarship. In other words, they are going to take children from their homes in places like McCallum, Rencontre East, and other areas that are remote, and they are going to say, okay, once you reach Grade 9 you are finished in your community. Your mother and father pack up your clothes, you are going to a bigger centre, and that is where you are going to be until you get your Grade 12.

If somebody was going to do that with my child, I do not know, I do not think I could take that. I could not take that. That would be extreme. So, what are the parents in rural Newfoundland and Labrador going to do when they get that word? What are they going to do? Are they going to pull up stake and follow their children? That is another exodus out of rural Newfoundland by a policy of this government.

This government made a commitment in their Blue Book - and the Premier held up the Blue Book today - that any decisions that were being made that would affect the running of communities and agencies in any part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, consultation would take place. We saw, before we closed the House of Assembly last December, that even the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation brought in a policy for paying a fee to ride on snowmobile trails. Now, he promised that he was going to consult with everybody using these trails. I said to him at the time, I stood in my place and said to the minister: You are placing me in an awkward position here, representing a district where everyone gets on their snowmobile and goes up in the woods, everybody goes up to their cabin. I said: I do not have any problem with bringing in a fee to improve trailways - I do not have any problem - but have you been able to address all the concerns that people have with making a mandatory fee?

He said, at that time, that he would consult over the winter months - can you imagine? - from January to now. Has he gone out and consulted? No way. He thinks that is a dead issue, but we had volunteers at the Exploits Snowmobile Club who put their heart and soul into that club, doing everything they could to make sure that it was up and running and doing well. When that mandatory fee was instituted, they had a public meeting in Grand Falls-Windsor and I do not think there was ever so many people turned up for a meeting of the snowmobile club as they had that night.

Who took the brunt of the questions that night for: Why did government do this? Why did government do that? Why didn't government do something else? The poor volunteers took the brunt of that, the volunteers who were seated around trying to conduct a meeting. As a result, the public relations person, Gary Haley, resigned right on the spot that night. He just could not take it any more. That was enough for him. His business was suffering because people were saying that he was only involved for his own interest, but that was not the case.

Then it wasn't long before the founder, the president, Gord Critch, who had done tremendous work and was appreciated by everyone around, was getting all kinds of digs and all kinds of questions, whereas government should have done their homework. Government should have come in and done their consultations around the Province. They did not do that. They shoved it down everyone's throat, just like they are doing today with the crab industry. You would expect that you would ruffle feathers, people would be angry, and that is what is happening today here in our House of Assembly. You can look at every policy that is coming down by this government and it is the same thing. They are setting the direction; forget about consulting.

How many times have I stood in this House and asked the Premier of this Province, and the members opposite, for a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor? I counted 111 times that I had raised it, plus the news releases and everything else that went with it, and I think the one that caught my attention was from Mayor Oliver Rose of Bishop's Falls. I want to read this letter - it is only short - and I think that sums it up. As far as I know, there is no affiliation by Mayor Oliver Rose for any particular political party. I have never known him to support one or the other. He addressed this letter to hon. Danny Williams, the Premier. He said: Dear Premier Williams, tears come to a person's eyes for different reasons and during different occasions. I have heard many a good joke that I laughed so much that tears came to my eyes. I have experienced the passing of many family members and friends when tears came to my eyes. I remember when my son delivered the Valedictorian Speech at his graduation class and tears came to my eyes because I was so proud. Yes, Mr. Premier, tears. Tears come to a person's eyes for different reasons and on different occasions. During the negotiations on the Atlantic Accord, tears came to my eyes several times as I heard you and Minister Sullivan stand up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and fight for what was ours. These, Mr. Premier, were tears of pride. I believe that was the way all of us in this great Province felt, regardless of politics or anything else. Last week, the NTV news carried a piece on the conditions at the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. As I watched that piece, tears came to my eyes once again. This time they were not tears of pride; this time, Mr. Premier, they were tears of shame. What I saw I could not believe.

Also, Sir, what I heard in the Budget, I could not believe. Over $1 million for a rugby association, and nothing for a cancer clinic in Central. Over $40 million to pay off the loan on The Rooms and nothing for a cancer clinic. Come on, Sir, prove to us all that you and your government are human and compassionate people. I ask you - no, I beg you - to reconsider your decision and do the right thing. Commit the money to the cancer clinic over the next couple of years, if you cannot do it in one year - that was a reasonable request - then my tears of shame will change back to tears of pride and respect. That comes from the Mayor of Bishop's Falls. Can you imagine?

I also saw in the paper just March 30, a little while ago, an interview that was done by the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works. He was being interviewed by Dave Cooper from the local paper, The Pilot. He said: I fully support a cancer clinic for Central Newfoundland but we just had a new regional health authority appointed that becomes operationally legal on April 1 and I think we have an obligation to heard from that authority. Is that their number one priority?

Now, here he is sloughing it over to the board, asking the board: is that their number one priority? Is that where they want to go? He said: But I want to say categorically and clearly that I fully support a cancer clinic. Where is it going to be located, the extent of it, how much funding it requires, these are all the issues we need advice on. And he said: We will leave that up to the new board. Do you mean to say that at this late date, after the people in Central Newfoundland wanting a cancer clinic all these years and had one announced in 2003 and cancelled by this government, that a Minister of Transportation and Works is asking at this point: where will the cancer clinic be located? I do not know how he lacks the compassion to even mouth out those words after seeing and believing - people who he knows of and family members of his own, and all of us have family members who have been hit by cancer, to sit and ask whether or not that would be priority number one of the current new board of health for the Central region and whether or not it would be located in Grand Falls-Windsor.

When I asked the Premier for this, I did not ask the Premier for a band-aid, I asked the Premier for a cure. The only cure to help those cancer survivors in Grand Falls-Windsor - and Grand Falls-Windsor looks after people from the South Coast, from Notre Dame Bay, even as far as Baie Verte. So, it is a regional centre. It looks after about 100,000 people. Then for the Minister of Transportation and Works to ask at that point whether or not it would be located in a different place. Well, what an affront to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and those taking their treatment at that clinic. That clinic is below dignity and does not provide an atmosphere where people can be healed from their treatment, and their sickness is not conducive - I do not need to go back and relay the situation there.

I do not think there is anybody in this Province who does not know the situation of the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. I do not think there is anyone in this Province who has not said to the Government to Newfoundland and Labrador, the new government, almost two years on the job, that it is time for you to make that decision and announce it. People will thank this government once they make that announcement. I do not know what is holding you up. Day after day I asked that question in here. You are asked on the street. The media are asking you. You had no problem finding the money for other things that you thought were more important; other things like cultural projects. You thought cultural projects were more important than a cancer clinic. That was your decision, but there was plenty of money there. There still is. There was plenty of money for you to make that decision on the cancer clinic, and you would have been given a lot of credit for doing the right thing.

Craig Westcott wrote a very good column in the Express on March 30. He said: A way of measuring the effectiveness of Canadian Provincial governments is how they care for the sick and elderly. Nearly all Canadians take pride in our publicly funded health care system. Last week's provincial budget though showed that our current government, while enjoying immense political popularity, failed the test on two crucial counts. The first failure was accorded for the failure to subsidize the Alzheimer's drugs. Now, why did this government leave out Alzheimer patients and their families? It just escapes me why they would do this when they would choose to look after other illnesses and sicknesses and provide drugs to other people in need, but they would not look after Alzheimer patients when they had the money. They had a surplus of $117 million. Why would they leave out Alzheimer patients? That is what I do not understand.

The same is true for the government's failure to rectify the situation at the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. It said: The latest provincial Budget was a pretty strong effort when it came to balancing the many demands and restricted resources of this Province, but it was not a compassionate effort, and for that reason alone it was a failure.

So, we have a government that is business oriented. There is nothing wrong with being business oriented, but do you know something? Government has a social responsibility. The social responsibility is to people like I just described. It is also to people who get their living from the sea. It is from people who get their living from the sea. They were here. That is the reason why we are a Province for over 500 years. The fisherpeople were here long before anything else was tried.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This House will recess and the Speaker orders that the galleries be cleared.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Continuing debate.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am responding today, again, after the recess of the House, to the Budget that was delivered just a few short weeks ago - March 21, in fact. I would like to talk about the financial position that the Province finds itself in.

I think The Telegram might have said it all when they had gone from bankruptcy to bonanza; I think there was a heading in The Telegram just after the Budget. How did the Province land on its feet again after delivering such a bad message a year ago?

We said at that time, a year ago, that there was a lot of confusion in the numbers. I think Lana Payne said it best when she wrote in her column in The Telegram on April 3 and she talked about the confusion of reporting financial figures. Most of the general public, most of us, get confused when we hear about cash deficits, we hear about accrual deficits, and we hear about long-term debt.

I guess if you talk about that enough, and you confuse people enough, people will probably believe it in the end. We always, as a previous Administration, reported that we were not in the bad financial position that this government alluded to and still refers back to, even after two years on the job, where they are blaming everything on the previous Administration.

One thing that the previous Administration had, they had compassion for people. I think that was demonstrated in the deficit in the Department of Health, and increasing our cash deficit for looking after people who were ill and needed help.

I do not mind being on my feet saying that is true, and I will never apologize for it. I will never apologize for trying to cut down on the lineup for cardiac surgeries. I will never apologize for putting a long-term home in Grand Falls-Windsor. I will never apologize for putting a dialysis unit out there, and I will never apologize for approving a cancer clinic. I will never apologize for any of the money that was put into drugs to help people, our seniors. I will never apologize for any of these expenditures that we made in the interest of assisting our elderly and those who could not help themselves.

This government, not through their own initiative, through external factors, are in a better position today. They were lucky enough to have more money from the increase in oil prices. There was a new deal struck for equalization, a new deal struck for health care, and, of course, we have to give the Premier credit for the deal that was struck on the Atlantic Accord. I did that several times, and I am glad to say it again today, to congratulate the Premier on the Atlantic Accord.

What was very apparent when the Finance Minister delivered his Budget, March 21, was that government tried to pretend they had a deficit this year, when in fact they did have a surplus. They had a surplus of $113 million. Can you imagine? From all the chatter and talk and groaning and moaning of taking over a new government and saying how bad the previous administration was, they ended up with a surplus this year and tried to hide it. Guess what they did? They had a surplus of $113 million, and that is not small money, $113 million. Instead of putting it where it should be put, I heard the member - I will have to look at my list now - I heard the Member for Burin-Placentia West trying to wiggle his way out of the fact that there was no CT Scanner funded for his region. Can you imagine? He was trying to get on the radio and say that he was going to use a regional approach and that he wanted to encourage all organizations in the area to continue their fundraising, get their priorities in line, and work with this government for further improvements to health care.

If you look at the Burin Peninsula, it is a region of its own. He was siding with government when government had $70 million, by the new health care agreement this year, to put in new equipment and improve the health care services all across our Province. He was there siding with government for not putting a CT Scanner in his region. Can you imagine? What clout does this member have with his government? There are thirty-four over there sitting on that side and government had $70 million in new money to improve health care in this Province. By the way, that is not a one-shot deal. That is not a one-shot deal! That is an eight-year plan where government is going to have at least $70 million every year for the next seven years to put money into improving the health and well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in our Province.

I would like to know what kind of pressure the Member for Burin-Placentia West is putting on his Cabinet colleagues and the Premier to make sure that becomes a reality. What kind of pressure is he putting on his colleagues? I do not think he is putting any pressure, because if he was he would have that in his Budget already passed.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) consulted with the fishermen and brought their concerns forward.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

I saw the Member for Windsor-Springdale, mind you, on NTV when we had a rally in Grand Falls-Windsor in support of our cancer clinic. The Member for Windsor-Springdale was apologizing - can you imagine? - apologizing that he could not get the cancer clinic in this year's Budget because you cannot get everything you ask for. Can you imagine, when this government has a surplus of $113 million? Now, that is over an above the $70 million in new money for health care. He could not get the money for a cancer clinic and he was apologizing for his government. Now, if you are going to get from the backbench to the frontbench, you better get busy. You better get busy! We know one person who got busy last week and he got moved around a bit on the second bench.

MS FOOTE: That is how they keep an eye on him in his job as (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes. I will leave that matter for my political section, because I have a long political section when the times comes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I can't wait. I can't wait to hear it.

MS THISTLE: No, you can't wait, and there will be lots to talk about. There will be lots to talk about.

MR. E. BYRNE: It will be more interest in that than there was in CBS and Red Wings game down at the Mile One on Sunday.

MS THISTLE: Well, I can tell you that most of you will sit up and listen, and you should.

Anyway, we are talking about the finances of this government. They ended up with $113 million in surplus, and it is interesting how they projected they would handle the surplus for the next two years while they are in this mandate. They said: We now project a cash surplus of $143 million for 2006, and the following year, 2007-2008, instead of a balanced cash position, we project a cash surplus of $73 million. Guess what else they are saying? The cash component of the deficit will be gone. Now, what year are they referring to? They are referring to 2007, and what is going to happen in 2007 in this Province? There is going to be a provincial election in October, 2007.

What they have done, they have manufactured the figures. In other words, they have cooked the books, and they have told you upfront today, in 2005, they have cooked the books.

MS FOOTE: Their recipes aren't very good.

MS THISTLE: I do not know what that recipe will be, but they have cleverly manufactured every figure that is going to be on the books in 2005, 2006, and 2007. They say in 2007, the year we go to the polls - can you imagine? - we will have a cash surplus in that year of $73 million. Guess what else? The cash component of the deficit will be entirely gone.

Now, they are looking for a few stars at the end of 2007, but really, you know, they have a surplus this year. That surplus did not really come through any initiative of this government. That surplus came from all new federal dollars. All new federal dollars, that is what happened here. We are glad to take federal dollars and we will take more of them if we are able to get them. In fact, that is the reason we are in a good position this year.

I found it extremely - I do not want to use the wrong parliamentary word because I know the Speaker will draw that to my attention, but when I looked at the revenues that are projected for next year, I could not believe my eyes. I think people are getting wise to the way accountants do their figures, and governments, and what they tell you and what you should know.

We just had an increase, for instance. This government just put an increase on liquor sales in this Province -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It appears that the Government House Leader wants to make a point of order and I will give him a minute or so of my time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Whatever time I take up, certainly, from the member's time I will add back, and has no reference to her commentary on the Budget. It is with an oversight made today and I want to correct it immediately. When we announced earlier the makeup of the Estimate Committee meetings there was an omission and I guess there are sins of omission and commission. The sin that was produced today, a parliamentary sin in the House, was one, I say to my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, of omission. We announced that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was a member of the Social Services Committee for the Estimate Committee purposes but we should have announced that it was Mr. Randy Collins, the Member for Labrador West. I do want to correct that for the record and provide the appropriate apologies to my colleague. It was an oversight, like I said, a parliamentary sin of omission not of commission.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I will accept what the Government House Leader said, because usually when I get up to speak he is always on my heels. He cannot wait, then, to get up and cut me off and interject whenever he hears something that cuts an edge, you know, cuts a nerve. He is usually up on his feet, then, right away. Thank goodness he is not reached that stage yet.

I want to discuss some of the projects that government decided to put money into. I must say, that I do not think we can fault government for putting money into the cultural industry in this Province. I had an occasion last week in Grand Falls-Windsor to be part of the Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival. This is an important year for the Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival, they are celebrating fifty-five years. I heard the Member from Lake Melville, today, get up in this House and congratulate some of the players in the Mokami festival on their showings. I wanted to say that, when I heard Una Joseph, who is the President from Gander, speak at the festival I was kind of shocked because the Member for Windsor-Springdale was there on the front stage like myself, and they wanted the Member for Windsor-Springdale to bring back a message to his government, that there is no funding for the Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival at all. They have been entertaining and crafting actors and artisans for fifty-five years. Many of them have gone on to make acting and drama a career. Of course, one of them we will be honouring in our own community this summer. Gordon Pinsent had his start, like a lot of people, in auditoriums and Arts and Culture Centres around our Province. We also just celebrated and made Mary McCormack from Grand Falls-Windsor a lifetime member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival, someone who has given countless hours and time to the arts community just too numerous to mention. She is known all over the Province and I am delighted to congratulate her on this wonderful achievement. She was given quite a resume and a tribute that evening by Melinda Anthony and we are so very glad to have her in our community.

I think this government have stretched out pretty wide in the cultural industry this year, but they should consider the Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival. Do you know, when they operate they go to a different location every year and we were pleased to host the last one in Grand Falls-Windsor in April.

It is hard to believe this, but most of their sponsors are local businesses from every community where they take part. We should not really be leaving that up to business, to support entirely the people who take part in the drama festival from year to year. If government is going to cultivate a cultural awareness in this Province and add to what is already there, they should be onside and they should provide grants, non-repayable grants, to the people who operate the Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival.

Next year that event will be hosted in Corner Brook, which is the Premier's district, and I hope that members who are here on the government's side will let the Premier know that and will lobby to make sure that funding is provided next year and following years for this wonderful event.

It is interesting, when you look at the fact that government provides money to the cultural industries in this Province and, in the same breath, guess what else they are doing? They took over $300,000 from the budget of the Arts and Culture Centres of our Province. I guess not too many people would know that, but if you look inside the budget you will find out that there are going to be at least six people lose their jobs and there will not be so many of these cultural exhibitions coming into the Province, so people will not get those national treats. People from outside our Province will not be travelling into the six Arts and Culture Centres that we have in our Province. They have made a decision to take out over $300,000 from the arts and culture budget, all in a year that cultural industries and the cultural theme is ringing loud and clear. The first item in the Budget that the Finance Minister and the Premier have addressed is the cultural and recreation investment in our Province. In the same breath, that they are not going to take and they are not going to let anybody know unless they go to look for it, they have taken out over $300,000 from the budget. That could result in several jobs, many jobs. It could result into the operation of these Arts and Culture Centres around the Province having to cut back and scale back. These are the kinds of things. They will do something on one hand and right in the same breath they will make a negative approach as well.

I think the biggest omission from the cultural theme for this government was the omission of not providing funding for the Mealy Mountain Auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. You know, this government had seven news releases in their Budget package on the cultural theme, but not one of them included the Mealy Mountain Auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I do not know how the Member for Lake Melville can stand in his place and say that he is a part of this government when they did not address the fact that there is no auditorium for the people in Labrador to express their arts and crafts to the community at large. Was it an oversight? If it was, they had plenty of time to correct it. They cannot blame it on the fact that they did not have the money. They had $117 million that they are walking around and running around like I don't know what, trying to figure out how they could spend it. They never asked anybody in their caucus; or, if they did, they did not pay any attention to what they said.

I do not know how the Member for Lake Melville, with all of the abuse he is getting lately for not being the Cabinet minister up there, can sit up in his seat and actually go back to his community. He does not have an explanation as to why they have no auditorium. How can you counteract that one? Here you are, you are sitting on the government side, you have thirty-four members, you are high in the poles, there is new money coming from all directions, in fact you have a surplus when you thought you would be bankrupt, and you have to go back and come up with some story to satisfy your constituents, that you cannot provide an auditorium when there is not another one in Labrador. There is something wrong here. I guess it is all about priorities and this government has no priorities for Labrador. It is clear. They made that known.

They went up with a Cabinet Committee about three weeks before Budget time. What they did, they did a rerun. Everything that was announced last year and the year before, they announced it again. The Premier was on Open Line when they got back - I have the transcript - and he said he got criticized for not looking after Labrador. He said, he doesn't know what the people up there are thinking, that they didn't appreciate his announcement. Well, the only thing the Premier forgot to think about with the announcement was that they had heard it all before, a couple of times before. There is nothing new for Labrador.

The Mayor of Goose Bay, Leo Abbass, almost didn't know what to say. The Premier said: What do you want? Do you want a long-term care home, do you want an auditorium, or what do you want? He made it look like it was the major who was making the decision and not the government. This is what they call deflection. They are good at deflection. If they have something that is causing them a lot of anguish and a lot of torment, they will deflect it to somebody else. Really, there is no excuse why the Mealy Mountains auditorium was not done.

Now they are saying they have a cultural curriculum in the schools. I pity those poor teachers, the ones who are left, who are going to have to provide a new curriculum to our young people. It is fine to bring in a new curriculum and I agree with the cultural theme. We should know more about our Newfoundland and Labrador history. It is quite evident if you look at young people today and you ask them questions about our history, most of them cannot answer you. Bringing in our history of Newfoundland and Labrador is a good thing. One thing that is shocking is the fact they are saying they left in seventy-five teaching units when in fact they took out two hundred last year and the same thing this year.

Even in our district alone, the Nova Central School District, they have mentioned that they will have lost 203 teachers. Can you imagine? So that speaks for itself.

Then they go on to say that - it was interesting when I was reading about the tourism aspect of this Budget, when the Premier was glad to say that they were the first partners on board to provide funding for the provincial training centre, a cost shared construction of $4.3 million between Sport Newfoundland and Labrador and the Rugby Union. The Province's portion will be $1.3 million.

The Premier was proud to say in his news release - I had to read it a couple of times before I could believe it. This is what the Premier said in his news release: Government will provide $1.3 million over two years towards the future development of a new provincial training centre in St. John's to support provincial and Canada game athletes. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the first funding partner to confirm its investment for the project. That is $1.3 million. Now, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the last funding partner to confirm its investment into the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. We have the fundraising done and the Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Foundation have made their commitment, they are on board. The only one left to come to the table is the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but yet they are the first one to come in for a rugby field in St. John's. So do we have a compassionate government? I will leave that question.

Now let's talk about business, innovation, trade and rural development. Let's talk about that. Last year when I stood in this House I talked about the Doug House plan. Doug House is the deputy minister for business - business is in there too now; business, innovation, trade and rural development. He had a plan whereby he was going to have business development on the Trans-Canada Highway, forget about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. His plan was business development on the Trans-Canada Highway. Now, it was interesting when I looked at the Express, March 23, and I saw the minister and she was giving a report of the new - she found the answer for rural development. Guess what that answer was? She created a new committee, another layer of bureaucracy, to oversee the twenty economic development zone boards. That was going to be a committee of nine boards that were going to oversee the other ones. This is what she calls the answer to rural development. She had another layer of administration that was going to be the answer to rural Newfoundland and Labrador's development. Well, I chuckled when I saw that.

I also read what she said in the Express. All of those councils - she thinks she has the answer now to rural developments. She said the new council she has set up will report to the Rural Secretariat - whoever that is, I have not seen anything the Rural Secretariat has done yet - that will advise the provincial Cabinet on rural development issues. She has a warning for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is what she is saying: Communities really ought not to be competing with one another. They need to have an overall vision. So, this is what she is telling rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities, she said: you might go to school in community A and you might get your health care services in community B and the economic driver for the region might be community C. Now, I would say to rural Newfoundland and Labrador: Beware of what is coming down the tube. She does not believe that you should be able to go to school in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, see the doctor in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and do your business all in the one community for government. She said it, it is here in the paper. So, look out. What she already said, too: Despite all the hard work so far, a consultant has been hired - now, mind you - to conduct hearings and help the government pull together the strategy by this fall, and that is fall, 2005. Two years on the job and she does not have a plan yet for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I thought it was the cutest thing of all when I heard Randy Simms last week on the Open Line show ask the Member for Gander: Would you give me the condensed version of what you feel the strategic plan is for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? He started to say: Ah, Ah, Ah and Randy had to help him out. Randy had to help him out, get the plan into effect. Here we are two years on the job and not one of the members of the government knows what the strategic plan is for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not have a clue where they are headed; not a clue.

I could not help but read, in our paper there was an editorial by a couple of business people over on the West Coast. They said: rural services suck. He said: rural services suck. That was the heading for this editorial. The Danny Williams government seems to want rural Newfoundland and Labrador to continue dying slowly, a slow death. According to the article headline: Fed up with unreliable government service, a businessman was unable to get electricity permits all last week because - why? Why do you think he was not able to get a permit? Because a provincial employee was off sick. Now, can you imagine? If you were wiring a house or if you are opening up a new business or if you are renovating your house, whatever, everything had to grind to a halt. Do you know why? Because the provincial government employee was off sick. Now, Dave Morgan - he gave his name, Dave Morgan of D and R Construction noted that the same office was shut for a full two weeks last summer while the lone staffer vacationed. So, in other words - can you imagine going into the Department of Government Services and trying to get an electricity permit and there is a sign on the door: Gone fishing? Can you imagine that? My goodness, what kind of a government are you operating? A Mickey Mouse one? I would say so.

People trying to do business in this Province - what they have been doing quietly, so they would not alarm anybody, they have been cutting people all over government departments. There is no way that they should be allowed to not put somebody in the place of a civil servant who is operating and providing a crucial service to our public. I do not think you would get away with that. You would be out of business if you ran a private business and you were offering that same service - if you were a private business person - to put a sign on your door for two weeks. Do you think you would have any customers in the end? Not likely.

If this is what you are trying to do to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you are doing a good job of it because you will soon have rural Newfoundland and Labrador taken off the map.

This was incredible, and this was in a couple of the Transcontinental papers they are now, where somebody had gone in to get a simple electrical permit. The sign was on the door: Come back in two weeks' time.

There is no way that a government should be allowed to get away with that - no way. I will tell you that rural development in this Province - the minister, they think they have the answer but their answer is one of - Doug House is getting his way. He is going to have that Trans-Canada Highway development plan. That is the only one that he knows about, and he is pushing it. He is going to make it happen, and forget rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can tell you, people are concerned about economic development, or the lack of economic development, in this Province. I heard a man - actually, he is an artist, a musician. Everybody knows Ray Johnson. I am sure the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde knows Ray Johnson. He is so concerned about rural Newfoundland, the exodus of people, and government not doing anything to improve and make sure that rural Newfoundland is there many years into the future, he has taken it on his own now to organize an economic development symposium.

When you get a private citizen who wants to do that, what does that tell you? He has a member, a member out in Trinity-Bay de Verde, and he said he is not getting anywhere with feeling any comfort level that economic development is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He said it is a shame, to actually look out through the window and there are no boats tied up at the harbour any more. There is no hustle and bustle. There are no young people.

He, of course, is a touring minstrel. He has been and is with the popular group Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers. They have been all over the country, and everywhere they go you can be sure there is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian in the audience wherever they are. They always play to sellout crowds. He is saying, who will speak for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the symposium designed to tackle social and economic issues.

That cuts deep into the fibre of our existence in this Province, when you get a private citizen who is willing to take up the fight for rural Newfoundland and Labrador because he does not see that government is doing what they should be doing.

Now, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, she has another layer of administration. She has nine regional councils. She feels that is the answer to rural development; but, you know, when you see a private citizen taking an initiative on his own to do this, he knows rural Newfoundland and Labrador is being overlooked by this government.

Talking about rural development, I wanted to talk a bit about the Department of Business. Now, it is ironic - in fact, it is a mystery - why the Department of Business does not have the number of employees listed as salaries on the payroll of that department. Last year they had a budget of $1 million, the Department of Business. That is a department that is headed exclusively by the Premier of this Province. Now, he was going to be the answer for business in this Province. He was going to generate new business opportunities within and outside this Province. There was $1 million designated to the operation of that department last year. The funny thing about it, we had an Estimates Committee last year, like the one we are going to be doing now in another week's time, and we asked questions. We wanted to ask the Premier directly what his intentions were for that new Department of Business, and do you know he did not turn up. He did not turn up for that Estimates Committee meeting. He sent the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and she was not able to answer one question. Her mind was blank. She did not have an idea of what was going to be done, and it looks like there was nothing done because there was $1 million in the budget and $300,000 of it was spent. I do not know what it was spent on; there are not employees listed there. Was that money, that extra $700,000, transferred to some other department? These are the kinds of questions I would like for the Minister of Finance to answer.

This year the Department of Business is headed up again by our Premier and he is listing down $325,000 for salaries. Guess what is missing? There is no indication of how many people will be hired. All it says is, t.b.d. That means, to be determined. Imagine! Two years of operating this so-called new entity, the Department of Business, with $1 million budget, and he has to determine this year how many people he is going to hire. Everyone who is out there today and watching this program know full well that this Department of Business is a sham. There was nothing done last year and he doesn't have any idea of what is going to be happening this year or else he would have his positions outlined and he would be able to tell this House of Assembly exactly what was going to be done this year.

In fact, there is another one here, the Ottawa office. Now, I asked a lot of questions last year on the Ottawa office. We know there have been big developments since last year when I was asking the questions on the Ottawa office. When you think about business in this Province, a lot of business comes from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We saw in this House of Assembly today, harvesters who own their own enterprises and right now they are at a standstill, simply because the government has brought in a policy that they can't work with and government are not willing to change it. What will happen to their businesses? Is the Premier satisfied to let those businesses be destroyed?

The Ottawa office has been an interesting topic to talk about. The only problem is we cannot get any answers. Last year I sent several Freedom of Information requests to the government. I wanted to know what meetings Bill Rowe attended, what was the nature of his business, what was the expense of running the office, and many things concerning the Ottawa office. The strangest thing that I looked at was the fact that the Express on February 9 - now, this is interesting. Mr. Bill Rowe had been interviewed by Craig Welsh and at that particular time he was really happy to be working out of the Ottawa office and he was complimenting the Premier on having successfully concluded the deal on the Atlantic Accord, and so on. His next statement was: Depending on what the Premier wants to do next, Rowe is prepared to start working on those issues in Ottawa. Now that is key. This was February 9, 2005. Depending on what the Premier wants to do next, Rowe is prepared to start working on those issues in Ottawa. I was kind of shocked the next day when I looked at the government's website, when I looked on my computer the next day on the government's website, which was February 10. Bill Rowe was really excited about his assignment in Ottawa, and no matter what the Premier wanted him to do in Ottawa, he was on board and rearing to go. The Premier just had to say the word and he was ready to start. The next morning, on the government website, it says: Premier announces the resignation of Bill Rowe. Now, what happened overnight? It says: Premier Danny Williams today announced he has accepted the resignation of Bill Rowe as the provincial representative in Ottawa, and Mr. Rowe will stay on until March 15. Now -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did Loyola Hearn say about that office (inaudible)?

MS THISTLE: Yes, what happened to that? Bill Rowe was ready to do whatever the Premier wanted to do next. He said, on February 9, he was ready to do whatever the next assignment was. The next morning the Premier ran in to Confederation Building and announced that he accepted the resignation of Bill Rowe. That is a real mystery.

There is one thing that happened from last year to this year. They are now looking for another representative for the Ottawa office. To me, looking at the figures, I do not think they are going to pay this representative as much as they paid the last one. There could be a slight dip in salary. I do not know what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Of course, maybe that was a bit contradictory because maybe our Premier listened to the MP for St. John's West, Mr. Loyola Hearn. He said, in his own words, that the Ottawa office was a waste of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's South and Mount Pearl.

MS THISTLE: St. John's South. Since they reconfigured those ridings, I have to check. St. John's South-Mount Pearl, is it? Sorry about that.

Anyway, we all knew him in the past as being the MP for St. John's West. Now he is the MP for St. John's South-Mount Pearl. He says and declares that the Ottawa office is a waste of money, but one thing we know about this Premier, when he makes a decision, whether it be good or bad, he is going to make sure that he does not move away from that decision.

MS FOOTE: How much money is going to the Ottawa office?

MS THISTLE: Well, the Ottawa office is $350,000 as far as we know, but we do not know what else is charged off to another department and is still the expense of the Ottawa office.

MS FOOTE: There was a car.

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes, we know that housing is part of it and we know that a vehicle is part of it, and I suppose the social network is part of it, and living allowances and all of these things. We do know that when the Premier makes a decision, whether it be good or bad, he will never change his mind. He is not used to negotiating after he makes his mind up. We have seen that today in this House of Assembly and yesterday as well.

I think people out around the Province better brace themselves for what is going to happen in the Department of Transportation and Works. A short time ago, actually it was the end of March, we had an announcement by the Minister of Transportation and Works that he is planning to winterize thirteen transportation and works depots around the Province. Now, are they in St. John's, are they in Corner Brook, or any of the bigger places? Oh, no. They are in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He is going to close out those thirteen highway depots. It is so contradictory. Whoever wrote this news release, this is what they are saying. It is interesting how they say, "To this end, we are consolidating some of our summer maintenance operations to provide a more efficient service...." - now, just let that digest - "....while ensuring there is an effective, reliable and safe transportation for the citizens of the province." He said, "We are reallocating our budget to achieve a more balanced program which will result in a better program overall."

He is going to cut out thirteen depots in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He is going to start off by making those jobs seasonal, which were permanent. What did those workers do in the summer? They did all kinds of highway maintenance. They did all kinds of maintenance on equipment, getting ready for the winter, and they made sure that equipment was in good repair. I have heard all kinds of reports this winter how the equipment was in the garage and they never even had enough people in the garage to do the proper work on it.

If you are looking in the Estimates book and you look at Transportation and Works, there is something alarming there that I think people should be aware of. This year, in the Estimates book, there is $1,115,000 in Purchased Services for Transportation and Works, whereas last year it was $37,000. Now, what does that tell those workers out there who are working for Transportation and Works? The writing is on the wall. This government intends to contract out many of the services that are now being done by Transportation and Works employees. That is pretty clear when you look at this Estimates book. There is less money in there for salaries and there is over $1 million extra new money for Purchased Services. I would say: Brace yourselves, for employees of Transportation and Works. It looks to me like there is going to be a lot of contracting out by this department.

Are the Members of the House of Assembly on the government side, who sit here in their seats every day - and a lot of them are from rural Newfoundland and Labrador - going to be satisfied to see people in their communities lose their jobs and let the work that they were doing be contracted out? Are they going to stand up and say, we need a good reliable service for the traveling public of our Province. Those workers perform excellent services throughout our Province. They made sure the equipment was in good repair. They made sure the roads were in good repair based on the amount of money they had to work with. It looks to me, and I would like for someone on the other side to stand up and tell me I am wrong, because what I see is that there is going to be $1 million in the Administration and Support Services on Road Maintenance - that is the heading on page 76 in the Estimates book - and it would be a good idea for members on the opposite side to take out their Estimates book now and look at Transportation and Works, and look at the Maintenance of Roads and Buildings, and go to page 76 under Road Maintenance. Salaries is dropped by $1 million, and the Purchased Services is increased by $1 million.

The writing is on the wall, that this department is going to contract out work that was done by permanent employees of Transportation and Works. They are trying to blindfold the devil in the dark, but you watch, that is exactly what is going to happen. That is not good enough! That is another foot in the coffin, in the grave for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when people who were working there for twenty years and more, have their families established in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, their livelihood, are set up there and they are going to find themselves without a job in the next few months. What are the members on the government side saying? Nothing! Nothing!

I commend the Premier for taking an aggressive role last year in trying to step up the enforcement on our inland waters and curb the poaching that is going on, but what I am disappointed in is the fact that he did not try to recover any of the money that this Province spent on hiring extra enforcement. He did not try to recover that from the federal government. In fact, he did nothing to tell them that this is their responsibility and they should be paying for it. I do not know why we are paying out $800,000 when last year we paid out $360,000. Now, this has increased to $800,000 this coming year. I know a lot of the extra money will be for sidearms, bulletproof vests and different equipment that our conservation officers will be wearing but it seems like we have taken over the role of enforcement on our inland waters, which is a federal responsibility. The more that we do in this regard, the less that the federal government will do. I have not heard the Premier or the Minister of Natural Resources stand in their place and say they have even written to the federal government to make them aware of this situation and recover the money that this Province has been putting out in this area. They have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that that gets done.

It is interesting when you look at health care, when you come to the Budget. I do not know who wrote this Budget Speech but I am sure they believed in everything that they were saying when they put it into budget form. I have a star by it. It says, "No area of expenditure is larger or more important in this year's budget than health and community services." What would my colleague from the Burin Peninsula say to that, I wonder? They were left completely out of the picture. They got a $3 million gazebo down there blowing in the wind that could have been a new hospital. People need the services. They want the services and they should not have to -

MS FOOTE: They are not new. They are just replacing services.

MS THISTLE: Yes. They have a cottage hospital down there that is in excess of seventy years old trying to put out good services. The staff are excellent but the facilities are just not up to par. It is simply that.

MS FOOTE: In fact, they are unsafe.

MS THISTLE: They are unsafe and they are, you know, not up to standard the way they should be. Their case has been made. In fact, the previous government approved it. They had started construction. Now, how can this government turn a blind eye to the people?

MS FOOTE: The Premier committed three times.

MS THISTLE: Yes, and the Premier has been on record in the media committing that he will continue to construct and complete the Burin health care facility and, all of a sudden, nothing. In fact, he even wanted to take the steel down so he would not have a reminder.

MS FOOTE: He holds Paul Martin to his promise.

MS THISTLE: Yes. I am glad the people on the Burin Peninsula took the matter into their own hands and they have a glimmer of hope. As long as that freeform, the steel is standing, they have a glimmer of hope that maybe the Premier will live up to his promise. He was big on promises during the Atlantic Accord debate and he held Paul Martin to his promise but the people on the Burin Peninsula are holding this Premier to his promise but he is turning the other way.

MS FOOTE: It does not seem to apply to him.

MS THISTLE: No.

Is this government oblivious or do they care? When you have a gathering in St. Anthony - unfortunately, it was not covered by any of the media in this Province. A thousand people packed into a school auditorium because they have a fear of losing some health services that they are already used to using. There is this Hay report now that is in progress and it is generating a lot of fear and anxiety around the Province and not one of those MHAs on the government side have allayed any fears that their particular constituency will not be losing the services that they now enjoy everyday, and need and require and they are -

MS FOOTE: They are not (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes. In fact, I do not even think - I have heard it in the media that these MHAs have not even shown up to an important public function like 1,000 people. A thousand people do not gather in a school auditorium unless they are concerned, let me tell you that. Can you imagine, the MHA for the area did not even turn up to allay any of the fears they had.

How about, the people in Stephenville-St. George's chose Good Friday morning to demonstrate their concerns about the possible downgrading of services at the Stephenville hospital and sending the obstetrics to Corner Brook. Even my own colleague here, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, was concerned that the people in his district could not even have a baby in Port aux Basques any longer. This was one of the recommendations that was coming out of the Hay report, that they would stop their obstetrics program in Port aux Basques, and we all know how windy it can be by the Wreck House. He stood up and asked the Minister of Health a question one day in this House, it was before Christmas: had they passed or accepted the recommendation from the Hay group, that a women could no longer have a baby, a child, West of the Wreck House? That could not be answered.

When I heard the Member for Port au Port and also the Member for Stephenville East - they did say on an Open Line show a little while ago, when asked the question: Would the kitchen be now closed out in Stephenville hospital and would people have to get their meals from Corner Brook? I think it was what Randy Simms had said, that he would not order a pizza from Corner Brook if he was living in Stephenville. Well, all they did to give their constituents some comfort was the fact that they said they would not order a pizza if they were living in Stephenville, for it to come from Corner Brook. They did not come out and say: We will be doing everything possible to make sure that our constituents, the people who use the Stephenville hospital, will not be affected negatively in the future. They did not give them any comfort level whatsoever. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, they did not show up for the rally on Good Friday. To the best of my knowledge, they were not part of the rally on Good Friday.

One of those members, or course, is the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, and she is a minister in the Cabinet of this government. She is the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. She must have influence, certainly, in Cabinet. There are not very many women in Cabinet now. They are disappearing. I think there are only three. There are only three women in Cabinet right now. One was gotten rid of. There are three left now. Certainly goodness she must have some influence with all of the things that are going on in Stephenville, to be able to pick up the telephone, phone into Open Line and say: Don't worry about it; this is under control. We are not going to pay attention to this, and create a hardship for the people of Stephenville-St. George's and surrounding area.

We did not hear that. We did not hear that from this government. You know, making choices is all about a government and how well they accept their social responsibility to the people of this Province, but we have not seen that demonstrated. This Budget lacks compassion. If you ask anyone around this Province, they will tell you that this Budget lacked compassion.

Government has a social responsibility. They must provide education, they must provide health care services, and they must help those who cannot help themselves. They have a social responsibility to the citizens of this Province.

They made a lot of choices during this past Budget. They had a chance to improve the health care and the well-being of a lot of people. They decided to do a lot of studies, study a long-term care facility for Labrador. It is well known by the people in Labrador that they do need a long-term health care facility; there is no question about it. In fact, I was surprised recently - two or three years ago, when I went back to Labrador City for a visit - I was surprised to see that a lot of the people who had retired from the company and other places, IOC and Wabush Mines, are choosing to spend their retirement in Labrador City and Wabush. I am sure the same thing is happening in other parts of Labrador, but particularly two mining towns. You would think that when people retire they would gravitate then to wherever they want to spend the rest of their time. I was surprised to learn that a lot of people in Labrador City and Wabush are continuing to live in Labrador City and Wabush, and consider it to be their home. Of course, a lot of them have children who are married there, and have grandchildren and so on. That was an eye-opener and, yes, you need to address these concerns as well.

When the Premier and his Cabinet went to Labrador City and they said they were going to put a patch on the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital and then engage in another study to see the condition of it, well, you know that is only a delaying tactic because the Captain William Jackman Hospital has been there a long time and it is well in need of replacement, I expect, rather than repairs.

You often hear Cabinet ministers get up on their feet, and even when they are outside of the House of Assembly they rely on two or three statements. One would be, in particular: We have a process in place. Well, that never gives you an answer. There is always a process in place.

You know, government had a great opportunity in their health care budget. I wish we had been blessed with $70 million for new health care initiatives when we were the former Administration. We were, every day, visited by the St. John's Health Care Corporation and others who had a backup of people wanting cardiac surgery, and we had to find money and make a large investment so those backups could be addressed. In fact, we had people we had to send out of the Province at one point for heart surgery, rather than take a chance of them not making the list in time. In fact, we even sent people out for cancer treatment when we had such a list of people needing treatment and we never had enough oncologists on staff to look after them.

Sometimes the members of the current government will get up and say, well, the former Administration left the Province in a mess. When I look at the fact that now you have a $1.7 million budget and our budget in 1996 was $900 million for health care, that tells me that we spent a lot of money on health care that we did not have, but we did have a health care conscience, a social responsibility, and whenever there was -

MS FOOTE: We did the right thing.

MS THISTLE: We did the right thing. I mean, you can compare that to your own situation in your own family.

MS FOOTE: There are people alive today because we did the right thing.

MS THISTLE: Yes, that is a known fact. Many people will say, I am alive today because I had heart surgery.

In fact, I was at an event on Saturday night, a fiftieth wedding anniversary for a couple in Grand Falls-Windsor, and there was a gentleman there who had heart surgery just a couple of months ago. He was on a list of people looking for heart surgery, and he was successful in getting heart surgery. He said, what a difference it has made in his life. He could not leave the house before that surgery. He was afraid that he could collapse and probably die somewhere. He was on a critical list. He had no energy. He could hardly drag his feet behind him. Now, he said, he feels like he has a new lease on life, and he looked wonderful. So, when you spend money in health care, you can never put a price on that.

As I said earlier, you can look forward to another $70 million coming again next year from the federal government to spend on new health care initiatives. This is going to go on for the next seven years. Why this government left out Alzheimer patients, I do not know. I do not think they have any good answer as to why they did not do that. It would not have cost very much money to include Alzheimer patients, when you consider that there was a surplus here of $113 million. What would another $1 million or $2 million make in the difference of paying - can you imagine paying out a museum, The Rooms, a cultural building, and they have not even cut the ribbon on that building yet? It think that is going to occur June 29. Government decided to pay off the mortgage on that building before they ever cut the ribbon, just so they would say that they had a deficit this year instead of a surplus. They would try to hoodwink the people into thinking they never had a surplus when, in fact, they had $113 million. They could have done a lot of things for a lot of people. They certainly could have put the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor.

One thing that we have to realize, when government made up their budget they based it on oil revenues being $38 a barrel. Everybody knows full well today that oil prices are in the vicinity of $50 and $55 a barrel. Based on those figures, government will have, next year in their coffers, an extra $300 million. Government will have, just from one source alone, $300 million extra that they will be able to spend. They still did not have the compassion to give $1 million or $2 million to the Alzheimer patients, to improve their quality of life, and for their families who look after them.

Do you know that government lowballed the revenues? They know they just increased liquor prices, and last year there was $106 million derived from liquor sales across our Province. Do you know that this year they put in, as a revenue, $99 million? Ninety-nine million dollars was what they said they were going to get from liquor sales. Already last year they had $105 million, so can you imagine what they are trying to do?

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) the population leaving the Province, you see.

MS THISTLE: I do not know. No, what they are trying to do, they are trying to lowball their revenues and say that they are in a financial predicament. Next year, they will come in with a surplus and they will slough it off to some other building or mortgage or something. They will forget about the needs of people, ordinary people, health care needs, and they will decide to do something that is not compassionate like they did this year.

Also, when you look at the fact that they have put in, for interest alone, on the Atlantic Accord this year, $42 million, there is one thing that they have not told us. They have not told us how they intend to spend the Atlantic Accord money. Now. So, government are keeping that information in the dark. They have a plan in mind, that they will sprinkle out a bit of money here and there when they feel like it, but they have $2 billion in Atlantic Accord money that they are not telling the people of this Province how they are going to spend it. It is not in the Budget projections for next year at all. It is not in the Budget projections. They did say that they are going to account for $42 million in interest on the Atlantic Accord, but the actual $2 billion they are not intending to let the people of this Province know, although it is the people's money. They are not going to put that in any part of the Budget that we can see this year, because they do not want any comment on how they are going to spend the $2 billion. They want to sit in the Cabinet room, or maybe it will not be the Cabinet room; it might be just the Premier's office, more than likely.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the Government House Leader might take an opportunity to explain to us exactly the protocol for the remainder of the afternoon. There has been some discussion back and forth; however; I do not know if we have reached a final resolution of this or not. I am just wondering if he might clarify for all of us here concerned as to what the process may or may not be for the remainder of the afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do not mind at any time providing the opportunity in terms of what the plan from government is from a parliamentary point of view in a sense. It is certainly my intention, on behalf of the government, to not put an adjournment motion at 5:30 p.m., according to our Standing Orders, and, in so doing, not putting an adjournment motion, it would mean that the House would automatically adjourn at 5:30 p.m., would then come back at 7:00 tonight, and once we are back we can once again be enlightened by the commentary of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. She will have the opportunity today to not only begin her, I guess, commentary on the Budget but she will also be provided with the opportunity to finish.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I guess the explanation is clear. If the business of the House is not concluded by 5:30 p.m., then the Speaker leaves the Chair and the House resumes sitting at 7:00 o'clock.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that everybody is enjoying this speech and they want to stay longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It appears that they are trying to get me to sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: I have a lot to talk about yet. I have hardly dusted the first few sections.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about what opportunities this government had a chance to fix and they did not. I guess it shows the fact that they missed an opportunity to show a compassionate side to the people of our Province. They came into a windfall, not through their own initiative, but they do have the money. I have never seen so much money in government coffers, that they have been reluctant to direct it in the place where it should be going. They have been playing a bit of a shell game. They are trying to leave the impression that they have no money, because they know there are two or three serious negotiations coming up now with nurses, teachers, and the RNC. They want to leave an impression that they have no money. I wonder sometimes whether or not people are starting to wise up to them. They should be, because we have never had the luxury, in all the years since Confederation, to have choices being able to be made with so much of a surplus before.

Seeing that my time is short, I think I am going to go to a section that I think will bring some levity to this speech. I want to talk about a bit of the political side. I want to ask the general public, and the people in this House: I wonder, why does our Premier get concerned about influential, powerful women? Why does the Premier of our Province oust the powerful women who are here in the government? I wonder, why does he do that?

We had a situation about a year ago when we had a Minister of Health stand in her place and stand up to the Premier. She decided that she was not going to put up with his antics. She was not going to listen to the Premier, because he wanted to go ahead and make a decision without ever contacting her or asking for her input. It is a similar comparison you could make to what happened in this House of Assembly today and yesterday, because a decision was made by this government that affects the crab industry. It was a one-sided decision. There was no input by the users, the crab fishers, at all. This woman, I have to give her credit - I gave her credit last year - stood up to our Premier and said, I am not going to take this. I cannot work with you. I am leaving. She put her briefcase under her arm and she went away.

How did our Premier react to that, I wonder? How did he react to that? Well, you know, if you looked in The Telegram the day after, the Premier said that this was his best day at work. Can you imagine? In other words, he had no problem with losing his key Cabinet minister. The Minister of Health is one of the key people in any Cabinet. He said that was his best day in office. Well, I have to give that member full credit. She is a member now and sits on the backbenches as the Member for Topsail. She had a lot of scruples about her, a lot of integrity and principle to stand up to the Premier and decide that she was not going to go along with that. If she was not going to be consulted and she is running the biggest department in government, she was not going to take it anymore. So, she decided she would resign.

What kind of a response would a Premier have when he would say the next day, that was his best day in office? What does he fear from powerful women? The next day or so he had to have a fall guy, but it was not a guy in this case, it was a fall woman. The most powerful woman in all of government, which was the Clerk of the Executive Council. He blamed it on her, that she did not contact her minister, which is absolutely rubbish and has no bearing on the situation whatsoever. He decided, in his wisdom, he would have a fall guy, which was a fall gal. He fired Debbie Fry. At the height of her career, the most respected civil servant, the top civil servant in all of government, he fired her.

What did he decide to do this year? They are the two most powerful women. The most powerful Cabinet minister was the Minister of Health. The most powerful woman in the government, of any civil servants, was the Clerk of the Executive Council. He decided he would fire her. Now, what did he do this year before the Budget? All of this seems to center closely to the Budget, although the Minister of Health, I think it was in the summertime. Two or three weeks this year before the Budget was brought down, the Premier decided that he did not want the services of the most important deputy minister in every department of government. The Premier decided that Florence Delaney was to go. She was the Secretariat for Treasury Board.

For the viewers outside who are not aware of how government operates in the Cabinet system, the Secretariat for Treasury Board recommends and makes sure that all expenditures of government are done under the complete guidelines of the Financial Administration Act. Now, why would the Premier want her to go? She championed the Premier through the rough year when the Province had no money, and did a balancing act to bring out a Budget. Why would the Premier want her to go this year when he had money galore? In fact, he had so much he had a surplus of $113 million and he had $2 billion that was not even touched.

He wanted to demote her for no reason. She said she was not going to take that after being the top person, Deputy Minister for Treasury Board. The Treasury Board Deputy Minister advises the Cabinet on all decisions of a financial nature. It is up to the Cabinet whether they accept or refuse or reject any decision or recommendation that is made by the Treasury Board Secretariat, who is the Deputy Minister. It is always the Premier's and Cabinet's political decision, or final decision, whatever they decide to do. They did not want her recommendations anymore, and they were willing and wanting to demote her to a lower position, after her giving her whole life to the provincial civil service. She was faced with a decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: She is definitely a woman of influence, and so is the Health Minister and so was the former female clerk of the Executive Council. What does our Premier have - why is he threatened by powerful women? I would like to know that. He has certainly no respect for women of influence. The three top women in government are gone. All in the space of less than one year; not even a year. Who is going to be the next woman to fall in this government? Who is going to be the next woman? Look around you Cabinet ministers. There are only three women in Cabinet right now. Who is the next woman who is going to fall? Who is the next deputy minister who is afraid to give an unbiased decision to government?

MS FOOTE: What female?

MS THISTLE: Yes. Well, we know that definitely females are at risk in this government. They are definitely at risk. They are an endangered species and they are becoming more endangered.

When you have the Provincial Advisory Council on Women, Joyce Hancock - I was surprised. I did not hear her say anything about the Minister of Health and the Deputy Minister of Health, Deborah Fry, but she did come out and speak on Florence Delaney's departure. It was interesting to see what the Minister of Finance said about Ms Delaney's departure. I was kind of shocked when I read that. This was in The Telegram, February 24, and the Minister of Finance said: Sullivan said it was a decision of Premier Danny Williams. He said it.

MS FOOTE: What? To get rid of her?

MS THISTLE: Yes. He said it was a decision of Premier Danny Williams.

MS FOOTE: To get rid of -

MS THISTLE: To get rid of Florence Delaney, to demote her. Then he went on to say: It is the Premier's prerogative. I respect that, and I support the Premier's decision in any decision he makes. The Finance Minister supports the Premier's decision in every decision he makes. That is what the Finance Minister does.

Now, we have the three most influential women in the government system who are gone. There are three Cabinet ministers left who are females. I would say, watch your back. I think there are two or three now who are left in the backbenches. Beware! If you do not toe the line, you are over the line; out.

We have seen a lot of jockeying lately for the caucus trying to get into Cabinet. I was interested when I looked at the government Web site April 6, and Premier Williams announces new appointments. I am pleased today to announce - I do not know if I am allowed to say his name - the Member for Gander as my new Parliamentary Assistant, said Premier Williams. He has been a strong active member of caucus, an outspoken MHA -

MR. GRIMES: And a terrific Whip. A fantastic Whip.

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes.

MS FOOTE: They had to fire him so the (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes. Wasn't he the same Whip that we called a Quorum on last week?

MR. GRIMES: Nobody here.

MS FOOTE: Yes, that's right, nobody there.

MS THISTLE: Nobody there in the House of Assembly so we called a Quorum. They did not have their numbers here. Yes, he said he performed extremely well as a caucus Whip.

I knew, when I saw the Member for Gander grooming his hair with the parting in the middle, he had one objective in mind. Now, there are a lot of men on those benches who are at a disadvantage because they cannot have their hair like the Premier's. We have a lot of people here with bald heads, so they cannot have their hair like the Premier's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: We know the Member for Gander has been trying to style his hair for the past twelve months to get the same look at the Premier, parted in the middle so that if he sits behind the Premier they will be able to say: Well, that is a carbon copy of the Premier. He is the same member who could not come up with a rural plan, the condensed version, when asked by the Open Line Host, Randy Simms. For all of that, the Premier thinks he is an outspoken MHA.

Listen, all you crowd there in the backbenches, if you are going to be the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, or you are going to get into Cabinet, the first thing you have to do is grow your hair out and part it in the middle.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes.

That is the first thing you have to do. You have to get on Open Line, supposing you are not the Fisheries Minister. You can speak about every subject. You can even take the Cabinet Minister's position. We had the member for, is it Clarenville? What is it called out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Trinity North.

MS THISTLE: Trinity North. My God, how could I forget that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: We had the Member for Trinity North get on the Open Line last week, and what did he talk about? He did not talk about his long-term care facility, he did not talk about his roads, he did not talk about hospitals or anything else. You know what he talked about? He talked about energy. Now, was he told by the Natural Resources Minister to get on and talk about energy?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) get out.

MS THISTLE: Get out and talk, and he did not know what to talk about. He could not talk about the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was passed over again.

MS THISTLE: He was passed over again because, lo and behold - I am sorry to hear about our health minister who had to get a pacemaker implanted. I understand he is doing quite well and we certainly wish him a full recovery.

Then, I heard that the acting minister was going to go to the Cabinet Minister who is the Justice Minister, and all of a sudden there was a big switcheroo. When I came into the House yesterday I heard that the health minister, in an acting position, is really the Minister of Finance.

So now the Parliamentary Assistant for Health, who is figuring he is next in line, has been overlooked once again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not again!

MS THISTLE: Once again!

I wonder is the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs worried about his Cabinet position? I wonder is he worried about his Cabinet position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Fisheries Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Yes, because I heard him last week talking about fisheries issues.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is called freedom of speech.

MS THISTLE: Oh, is it? Called freedom of speech. Usually there is a policy within Cabinet you do not usually speak on another's portfolio. We all have fisheries in our district indirectly or directly. Usually, it has been an unwritten word that you do not usually speak on behalf of another Cabinet minister's portfolio unless you are in the acting position or if you are an alternate. I was wondering, is he worried about his Cabinet position?

We are wondering about the Member for Lake Melville. We know that it has almost been two years and we do not have a Cabinet minister for Labrador. No Cabinet minister for Labrador. I do not know how the people in Labrador are putting up with this and I do not know how the Member for Lake Melville can go back, week after week, and face his constituents. What kind of a story can you make up, week after week, to satisfy your constituents?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to ask members if they could keep the noise down a little more. I am having difficulty hearing the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know they are hoping I will have to raise my voice so high that I will lose my voice and then I will have to stop.

I know that recently the Premier did make an announcement that he does have a new deputy minister for the new department - not the new department, the department that should have been there from day one, Aboriginal and Labrador Affairs. I could not get over, on TV, the Premier said that this new appointment will address the concerns of the Member for Lake Melville. Why would he say that? That really does not measure up to what the Member for Lake Melville wanted. The Member for Lake Melville wants to be in Cabinet. There is only one member on the PC government side from Labrador, and he has been brushed aside several times. We have a member now from the District of Baie Verte who is going to look after Labrador, when we have a member already up there and willing to go.

I am sure that Mr. - I cannot say his name - the Member for Lake Melville, must be wondering what is going on and must be considering his options. I wonder, did the Premier hire on that new deputy minister to run against the current Member for Lake Melville in the next election? I wonder, is that what the Premier decided to do? Did he hire on that new deputy minister to run against the current Member for Lake Melville in 2007? If I were the Member for Lake Melville, I would be concerned, because if you get passed over that many times, and they hire on a deputy minister that looks like he might be the chosen one, I think I would have to weigh out the options and see where we stand in this regard.

So, there is a lot of stuff going on behind closed doors in that caucus room that is starting to permeate. I wonder, how does the new caucus whip feel about getting ousted from his job as the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier? I wonder, how does he feel?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Budget.

MS THISTLE: Yes, it is in response to the Budget because the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier pays $24,000 a year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being 5:30 of the clock, and in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House will now be in recess until 7:00 o'clock.


April 12, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 9A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Continuing debate.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to be able to stand tonight and respond to the Budget of March 25. Of course, as the Member for Mount Pearl said, I am all refreshed. Yes, I had a good supper. It is unfortunate that I only have one hour to speak but I will make the most of that one hour. I will hope to get as many topics as I can in, in that one hour.

I have to say, today I was really touched to be a member here in this House of Assembly when the Speaker invited the family of Terry Fox here. What a moving moment, to be actually in the presence of Terry Fox's family. The Speaker did the introductions and it was just a wonderful moment to be part of celebrating Terry Fox's legacy. As we all know, this is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Marathon of Hope run that was started by an eighteen-year-old when he put his artificial leg into the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador here in St. John's. It was a wonderful feeling tonight when I saw the unveiling of the monument to Terry Fox, which will be there well into the future and always, I expect, to mark that wonderful day, April 12 in 1980.

Terry Fox left a wonderful legacy here. He gave encouragement to a lot of people and he did that at a time when walking and fundraising were not common. There was probably no other person, that I am aware of, who took on the - I guess he did not look at it as being a task. He looked at it as a challenge and something that he felt in his heart and soul he wanted to do. For an eighteen-year-old to take that on and have the tenacity, the endurance, the will to complete that journey across Canada with an artificial leg and his own, you know, that takes a lot of - it's a special person who will do that.

I was glad to see his family who have been so much a part of that legacy for the past twenty-five years. It is easy, I suppose, in a way, to do something once but the family has upheld that memory and upheld that legacy and Terry's commitment to cancer research for the past twenty-five years, and judging from the comments and the wonderful speech his mom gave today, I expect they will do that for many years into the future.

It was also alarming today, as well, to see the director of the cancer foundation in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Peter Dawe, give alarming statistics for what we can expect into the future for cancer for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. He was saying they are predicting at least 2,200 new people will be diagnosed with cancer this coming year. He said the numbers, too, are reflecting the aging population of our citizens in this Province. Particularly the baby boomer age, which many of us are in. I am in that baby boomer age and many of us here in this House of Assembly are in that category. What he was saying is that is when cancer becomes more prevalent, as we continue to age, but the glaring statistics - some of them were positive. There has been a good recovery rate for breast cancer and prostate cancer but lung cancer continues to be the number one killer in this Province.

It was also alarming when he spoke, that out of the 2,200 cases that will be diagnosed this year, 1,300 will die. Now that is really alarming, those figures. Out of the 2,200 cases diagnosed, 1,300 are expected not to live. That has a lot to do, as he was saying - and a doctor who was on CBC tonight - with the lifestyles that we are living. When I made a plea earlier today in Question Period to our Premier, and I asked him if he would commit today to announcing a new cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor, I did not get a firm yes. I did not hear a no, but I did not get a firm yes from the Premier.

Judging from the statistics that have come out today, we will need larger cancer clinics than we have anywhere in the Province today because more and more of our people, with the Province aging like it is, will be diagnosed with cancer. It will be a responsibility and a commitment by government to make sure that any person, any patient who is undergoing cancer treatment, must have adequate facilities to make sure they are treated in the best possible manner.

Of course, a lot of us need to change our lifestyles. They say that prevention is the biggest key to not getting cancer in the first place. For those who will get cancer, a lot of times it will not be from lifestyle, it will be genetic. We, as a Province, and this government, must make sure that our citizens get the best cancer care possible. Now, I do hope - the Premier said today that the Deputy Minister of Health has already submitted his findings after his visit to Grand Falls-Windsor. He has already submitted his findings to the Department of Health and government is reviewing those findings. Now, I know his findings will not deliver any new information because the Central West Health Care Board made a case this year prior to Budget. They made a case prior to Budget last year. I have stood in this House 111 times and made the case, and the previous Administration announced the cancer clinic. What is definite here today is that there is an urgent need to have a proper cancer treatment facility in Grand Falls-Windsor. The case has been made over and over and over. The homework has been done. All we need is a compassionate heart by this government and the matter will be totally resolved. Money is not an obstacle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Money does not stand in the way of this government making a decision for the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. Money is not an obstacle. This government just announced $117 million in a surplus, and they have an extra $300 million coming to them next year in an increase in oil prices. They have a new commitment every year for the next eight years from the federal government for another $70 million in health care initiatives to improve the health care facilities and the well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They have $42 million they have earmarked as just interest alone on $2 billion from the Atlantic Accord, so there is no reason why this government will not say yes to a cancer clinic for the people who use the treatment facilities in Grand Falls-Windsor.

The people of this Province will thank our Premier and this government if they do the right thing and they come out and announce this cancer treatment facility - a new facility which has been needed for quite some time. Do the right thing, I would say to this government, and don't delay. There is no need to put people through any more anguish than they have to. Come out and make the right decision and you will be thanked. In fact, I will be the first one to stand in this House and thank the Premier when he makes that commitment to the people in Central Newfoundland. I will be the first one ready to go and shake his hand and say: Mr. Premier, you have made the right decision.

I hope I have said enough, and the Premier has listened enough, and he will do the right thing and make that announcement.

I also want to talk about the concerns that are out there about the recent changes in our school system. It is interesting. When the current Minister of Finance, the current Minister of Education, when they were in Opposition, I was looking back some time ago and there were pages and pages and pages of how they opposed me when I was the Post-Secondary Education Minister. I stood on my feet two years ago, and I said we had the lowest tuition for our post-secondary students in all of Canada. There was only one exception. When Quebec treats their citizens, they give them a break on the tuition, but if you are a Canadian from any other province in Canada you will have to pay more if you attend a university in Quebec. So, that aside, in this Province we have had the lowest tuition rate in Canada for several years since the former Administration decided to cut tuition rates. We cut them by 25 per cent, when I was part of that government, but the current Minister of Finance and the current Minister of Education, they argued that point until they were almost blue in the face, over and over.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to raise this particular point because our Opposition Critic for Finance is giving her speech with respect to the Budget, and one of the lines in the Budget that the Finance Minister himself stressed when he was reading it, was that even with our new-found fiscal capability we should not waste one precious penny.

I raise a point of order and a question to yourself actually, Mr. Speaker, because we have had some discussions earlier today, in the context of whether or not we are potentially incurring some unnecessary costs.

The gallery has been cleared and closed, no access to the public since mid-afternoon. I do understand that there are some extra security forces in the precincts of the House now this evening. For what purpose I do not know, because there is no member of the general public here. I don't think any of us feel threatened. We had an hour-and-a-half recess for the supper break. I have travelled to and from the building. There are no signs of any general public anywhere near Confederation Hill, let alone in the precincts of the House. I noticed two RNC cruisers in the back parking lot when I came in, as if the place was under siege of some sort. These services are not provided free of charge. I think every member of the House, Mr. Speaker, would understand that. This is a cost to the taxpayer, with a government that says in this Budget Speech that we are now debating that we should not spend one precious penny if we do not have to.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, it is a point of order, I say to the Government House Leader.

There are also still RNC officers on overtime, just outside the door in the precincts to the House. I am asking, under a point of order, Mr. Speaker, whether or not - I could have even understood maybe some time earlier in the day why someone, and the Speaker maybe, might have requested their presence, but why now? Why since the closure of the galleries? Why, certainly, since the supper break? Under whose authority are they still here? I take it that it is your authority, Mr. Speaker, but even if it is, why would we deem it to be necessary at all right now when the galleries have been closed for at least four hours? There is no member of the general public anywhere close or near to the Confederation Building.

Let me make this one last point, not to belabour it, Mr. Speaker, because there was an issue on the evening news that the Premier of the Province made an issue suggesting that he had been threatened. My understanding of it is that he was asked what was said, and he said: People said I will get you. My understanding from other witnesses at the scene, who were there, was that they said: We will get you in the next election. The Premier conveniently left out the last four words. That is another matter. That has nothing to do with the precincts of this House, but I ask, Mr. Speaker, why are they still here, under whose authority, and do we need them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition would know that the Speaker cannot reply to a question that is asked in the House, nor should he; however, the Speaker will take the matter under some advisement.

The Speaker rules there is no point of order.

Continuing debate, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege has been raised by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the book, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Second Edition by Maingot, and in the book it states very clearly on page 172, "It now appears clear that the House of Commons will not tolerate outside police within the precincts on official business unless it is done with the permission of the Speaker, regardless of whether the House is sitting."

We had the Premier state to the press earlier this evening - he made some comment about him being threatened yesterday, and that Justice was looking after it. As a result, there were extra security in place today.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the galleries were cleared this afternoon. I spy somebody in the galleries now. I do not know who he is. I do not know if he is a member of the public or not. He is not wearing a uniform. He may or may not be a police officer, I don't know, and he may or may not be here with the permission of the Speaker.

There are also, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, other police officers in the precincts of the House, some of them armed. The question arises, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a fair question of privilege - whether or not the Speaker is able to answer questions from the floor of the House is another matter, but this is a question of privilege. Perhaps the Minister of Justice can enlighten us, but there are police officers on the precincts of the House. The galleries, I understand, are closed and yet there are individuals in the galleries who are not Commissionaires. I do not know who they are. They are not identified in any way. The question arises of whether this House is operating under proper parliamentary procedure? That, Mr. Speaker, I believe is a question of privilege and ought to be answered to the members of the House while we are here in session. I do understand that the parliamentary privilege rules are very clear, that the precincts of the House are not under the control of the police forces, that they are in the control of the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms who have the only authority to authorize police officers or outside forces to enter the precincts of the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is a question of privilege that may have to be answered by Your Honour because I do know of any other way that it can be answered since Your Honour is in control of the precincts of the House.

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

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

I guess the questions or points raised by the members opposite are ones for you to answer. They are not ones for government to answer because government cannot provide any answers to it because we are not involved in that aspect of security of the House.

In terms of a point of privilege. The only thing I can say to you is that, you know, any points of privilege with respect, on the face of it - I could quote that, in a parliamentary sense, in order for a point of privilege to be established it must be what they call a prima facia case, and let me read from the very authority that the member opposite has read from. Maingot, who is arguably the authority on parliamentary privilege from the Canadian parliamentary tradition. A prima facia case of privilege, in the parliamentary sense, is one where the evidence - on the face of it, as outlined by the member - is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or contempt has occurred and report to the House.

He goes on to say, for example, Canadian Commons practice more relaxed than in the UK under that section. He says that because of the more relaxed practice, the House of Commons of Canada is accustomed to entertaining many alleged questions of privilege. It is therefore not unfair to say that on most occasions that a member rises to invoke privilege, the remarks do not raise a real question of privilege. Nevertheless, Speakers continue to urge members to restrict the use of privilege procedure to those rare occasions where the known privileges are alleged to have been breached or where there is a real chance that an act or words could constitute contempt.

I am not sure that the points raised constitute contempt for this House, to be honest, but that is a question not for me to answer, Mr. Speaker, but one for you to decide. In your capacity as Speaker, like those before you and those after you, in deciding on a case of privilege you are asked to rule if a breach of privilege existed, and if you rule such, then it is up to the House to decide what the outcomes or what the practices or remedies will be.

I want to also point out, Mr. Speaker, that alleged acts must relate to a member's parliamentary work; words or acts must amount to contempt - and this is an important point. Under Maingot: But it is because of its nature that a valid question of privilege arises only infrequently. There must be some act that improperly interferes with the member's rights - and I am not convinced that members' rights have been interfered with here - such as his freedom of speech - which given the speech by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans in her capacity as critic, I think is evidence that no freedom was such breached - such as his or her freedom of speech or freedom from civil arrest. The interference, however, much not only obstruct the member in his or her capacity as a member, it must obstruct or allege to obstruct the member in his or her parliamentary work.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe that has happened. For just as the member is protected for what he does or she does during a proceeding in Parliament, so must the member's parliamentary work or work relating to a proceeding in Parliament be alleged to be improperly interfered with before the Speaker may find a prima facie case, or there must be some act that improperly interferes with one of the corporate rights of the House, such as its right to call for witnesses or the words or act complained of must be such that on their face they do, or tend to do, hold the institution of Parliament in contempt.

So, in response to the points raised by the member and member's opposite, there in lies our response in terms of the breach of parliamentary privilege. Obviously, it is up to the Chair, in your capacity as Speaker, to decide if a breach has occurred. If so, you decide that, we will deal with that. If you decide not to, then we will also have to deal with that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of my friend, the Government House Leader.

What we are talking about here is the operation of Parliament, and all members are affected by the presence of armed police officers in the precincts of the House if they are not there with the permission or the consent or the request of the Speaker. We had - as I indicated as a prima facie case - a stranger in the galleries after the galleries had been closed and nothing being - without anybody saying anything about it. These are prima facie on their surface. These seem, when taken with the comments of the Premier earlier this evening about extra security being undertaken by what was referred to as justice, which I presume is the Minister of Justice. This, on its face, flies in the face of the clear rule, which says here from the report of the Standing Committee on privilege of elections, September, 1973, reported on page 172 of Maingot. The quote is, "It is well established that outside police forces on official business shall not enter the precincts of Parliament without first obtaining the permission of Mr. Speaker."

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is up to you to deal with the question now or perhaps refer the matter to a committee for a report back to the House of Assembly, as to what the current state of affairs is in this House, given the fact that we have witnessed the presence of police officers, some of them armed, and strangers in the gallery when the galleries are supposedly closed by order of the Speaker. So, this matter needs to be reported back to the House.

I do not know if Your Honour is in the position to answer the questions now or give a report back or report it to a committee. Whatever way it is dealt with, in my view, it is a matter of the privileges of all members of this House, if indeed - whether privileges have been breached or not may be a question of fact, and all of the facts may not be available to Your Honour at the moment and may require a committee to look into the matter.

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

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

I appreciate the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi because he has gone a little further than he did before in terms of explaining his point. Let me summarize it - and if I am incorrect, I would certainly give leave for him to correct me.

I think what the member is saying is that, or asking the question: Who has - if there are armed police in the vicinity of the precinct, and he has not put any evidence forward that there are. Maybe there are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just one second, I say to members opposite.

He is saying that may be the case, but I think what he is asking is, if I am not mistaken: Has the Speaker, or those officers associated - such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Speaker's House - were they involved in requesting that? I will ask the member - and I am just looking for clarification - or has the government in some way, shape or form requested? I think that is the pith and substance of the request by the member. I cannot answer that question, only the Speaker can. I will defer it to the Speaker, in responding to the request made by members opposite.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will clarify it first. By way of evidence, my own eyesight, I have seen police officers, some of them armed, in the precincts of the House since 7:00 o'clock, and earlier this afternoon as well. I spied a stranger in the gallery. I think that is the parliamentary word: I spy strangers. There was a stranger in the gallery; a person who is not a member of this House, who is not a Commissionaire, who is not an Officer of this House in the gallery. He is gone now. A male gentleman who is now gone. If that constitutes evidence, in my view - I know the Government House Leader could not see this individual because he was behind him, but if there needs to be an evidentiary basis for an investigation or for a report, then I would happy -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know the Government House Leader is not questioning that, but if it needs to be on the record, then it is now on the record through my current words. Yes, to clarify it further, the question is whether or not these individuals are - well, I do not know who the stranger was, but whether these other individuals are here with the authority and permission and request of the Speaker or whether they are here in response to justice, which I assume is the Justice Department, as was intimated by the Premier in a public interview this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of privilege, the hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. GRIMES: Not to belabour the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, other than to say this. It is important, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi indicates, for all of us, as parliamentarians - particularly out of respect for yourself, as the Chair - to understand that the rulings that have been made are made clearly and understood by all of us. The ruling and the confusion - which is why I raised a point of order, which you suggested you were not going to accept that, and we are now debating a point of privilege. I would like a minute or so to contribute to this particular intervention, or make this intervention before you make your ruling or take it under advisement.

The ruling clearly - and then the confusion was this. The ruling this afternoon by Your Honour, as the Speaker, was that the public galleries were to be closed for the remainder of the session, which means nobody is allowed in. No member of the general public is allowed in the galleries anymore during this parliamentary day, and everybody on this side did witness a person sitting in the galleries, and the Speaker, himself, I would suggest to the Government House Leader, saw that person. The question was raised: Under whose permission? If the Speaker has ruled that nobody is allowed in, and we are all sitting here expecting nobody to be in, what happened in our parliamentary rules and procedures for someone to get in? Because that is a serious breach. If we are not going to take that seriously, we have a big problem. If somebody knows who it is and nobody else knows who it is, than who is it that has then placed themselves above the rest of us as equals?

The confusing part was that we came back after a supper evening news break whereby the Premier of the Province was on the airwaves, on television stations and the radio stations, Mr. Speaker, saying: I have been subject to a threat and the Justice Department - not the Speaker, not the House of Assembly, but the Justice Department - felt that I should have some extra security around. Is that the security that was up in that seat a few minutes ago? Is that the security that is outside that door, some in plain clothes, some in full RNC uniform with a gun in their holster on their hip? If we have them here - by the way, it does not matter how they got here. We are here in the nighttime with nobody around, no need of it in my view, and spending precious pennies that cannot be wasted, according to the government.

So, either the Justice Department had something to do with it, which the Premier wants the people of the Province to believe, or the Speaker, in taking care of us, has made a decision that he says he cannot answer from the Chair. I respect the rules, Mr. Speaker, but for us in this House, and for the people of the Province who might be witnessing it through television, they do not understand why. If the Speaker has made a ruling that there should be some extra security, why does he not tell us, it is a democracy? All I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, is you can explain it to us now or you can take it under advisement and explain it to us later. If you are not allowed to answer me in the House, I guess I will ask you tomorrow morning on Open Line. There is more than one way to get an answer. Somebody has to explain what happened here.

There is a point of privilege made. I suggest that there is something gone astray, something a little out of the ordinary has happened. An explanation would satisfy me, and probably the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and then the matter could be over or we will deal with it outside the Legislature on Night Line later tonight, Open Line tomorrow morning, letters to the Speaker asking what is going on, letters to the Justice Minister asking what is going on, freedom of information requests, whatever it takes. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, you might do us all a big favour by just offering an explanation because the Government House Leader says he does not know what is going on. If the Speaker does know what is going on, I would suggest, Your Honour, that maybe an explanation to us, very briefly, would put the matter to rest.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, far be it for me - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has raised a valid point. The Leader of the Opposition, in my view then - in trying to address a valid point - says: We will go to Open Line, we will do whatever. Great for you! You are the people's champion, I guess.

The fact of the matter is that a legitimate point has been raised. The Speaker will address it; not under the coercion or threat of members opposite, I guess, but whenever the Speaker sees fit to address it. I will say that it is an legitimate point, and I concur with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that he has raised a legitimate point. If that be the case, I would expect that we will receive an answer in due course, whenever that may be.

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

By agreement, could we have this be the final presentation?

MR. PARSONS: To the point of privilege raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Mr. Speaker.

For a person who does not understand the situation or who claims he does not have the information, the Government House Leader certainly has a lot of suggestions to make to the Chair about how you should handle it. Do it in your own time, talks about establishing prima facie cases, and so on. We have a very serious matter here, Mr. Speaker. You closed this House this afternoon to anyone and we have police officers running around in the precinct of this House with firearms on their hips. You control the security of everybody in here and you are the safekeeper of every privilege that we here are entitled to as members and as a Parliament.

The Leader of the NDP has raised a very valid point, a very valid point indeed. I would suggest, it is not a matter of simply saying, which you have not said - you said that you would take it under advisement, in response to the Leader of the Opposition's comment on a point of order. You have not ruled yet what you are going to do on a point of privilege. That is why I make my point now. I think this is sufficiently important that it is not something you simply take under advisement. Are we here in the people's House held hostage by RNC officers? The Premier of this Province or the Minster of Justice do not dictate who can and cannot get in and out of this place. That is the prerogative of this Chair.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader again, for someone who is not so concerned or claims to have no information - and this is not something that is happening at the instigation of government - he has a lot to say.

I am in support of the matter of privilege. There are police officers in the precincts of this House, and we merely asked who put them here, who allowed them here. How can a police officer sit up here in the gallery tonight - I know he is a police officer. I saw the gentleman in the elevator and he told me why he was here. How can anybody sit up here unless you invited them? If you invited them, that is a different story. All the member here has asked is: Who has allowed them here? If they are not here with your permission, who allowed them to be here? If that is the case, someone here has broken the rules. I think it is a very important matter and needs to be addressed urgently, and not something we simply take under advisement and decide whenever we willy-nilly feel it ought to be dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of privilege, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to have a couple of brief comments, because I just walked into the House of Assembly a few minutes ago with the point of privilege raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The reason I was a little late getting in is because I had signed in guests from Labrador to sit in the gallery, and when I took them to the upstairs floor to ask if they would be permitted to the precincts of the House of Assembly to view from the gallery this evening, they were refused. They were told that the gallery was indeed closed and the only way they could be permitted in was with special permission from the Speaker of the House of Assembly. I wanted to add that information for the point of privilege that has been raised and is being discussed here on the floor of the House this evening.

I want to thank you for that opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker will attempt to address some of the issues directly now, and if there is deemed to be sufficient need the Speaker can make a further statement in tomorrow's session.

If we refer to Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Mango, page 172, it is quite clear. "It now appears clear that the House of Commons will not tolerate outside police within the precincts on official business unless it is done with the permission of the Speaker...." In this particular case, I can only tell you, as hon. colleagues, that there was, in the Speaker's opinion and in the opinion of the people who would advise the Speaker - earlier today, I made contact with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and asked them for points of consultation. The two officers to which reference has been made were here earlier today with my permission. They are awaiting an opportunity for me to leave the Chair so that we can have a short meeting about certain matters following up from earlier today. That meeting will occur as soon as the Speaker is able to be relieved from his position as Chair of the House.

As for the issues involving other security matters, I have had no discussions whatsoever with the Minister of Justice on this issue nor with any officials in the Justice Department on this particular matter of security to the House of Assembly. My reference has been with the civil authorities because of the fact that, if you were in Ottawa there are two police forces within the parliament. There is a police force that would be within the Senate, Senate security. There is a police force within the House of Commons which is the House of Commons security force. The Speaker there has permission that he could refer matters to one of two police forces, namely the RCMP or with the OPP.

In Newfoundland and Labrador today, I did have the need to consult and that was done. The police officers who are here are here with my permission. However, I do believe that in the incident of the plain clothes officer who was in the gallery a few moments ago, that might have been a consequence of some mis-communication that occurred. Certainly, it was not with my knowledge, although after the Session began, I say to members, I did notice the gentleman was there and I did not have an opportunity to talk to the Sergeant-at-Arms to make sure that this gentleman was advised, that if it is closed to all members of the public then it should only be the personnel connected with the Commissioners and their staff, under the control of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who should be in the parliamentary precinct.

I trust that this matter is satisfactory. If members have need for further explanation they should consult with me so I can have knowledge as to whether they would like for me to write out a more detailed statement.

I thank members for the issue. As to whether it is a point of privilege, I will reserve that. My preliminary opinion is that a point of privilege would have to say that the rights of members who participate in Parliament have somehow been compromised or interfered with. I will look at the references and come back to the House with a statement on that particular matter.

Continuing debate. Before we continue debate though, I wanted to ask the House if, by consent, the time that has been taken up in this point of privilege and the point of order, is it by agreement that we would add that onto the time allocated to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans? The strict parliamentary rule would be that it would be included. However, I just want the advice of the House?

Do we have consent that the time would be added to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans? Agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is up to you.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) have to ask, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your prompt attention to the matter and your clarification. I think that it was handled very well, and at least now everybody here is informed about the circumstances and how they unfolded. There may be cause for further discussion of this in other quarters, as to what might happen in the future, but that is for another time and another place.

With regards to the issue of whether we have taken time from the member last speaking, I am not sure if we clarified that in our new rules. We have gone from unlimited speaking time to three hours in response to the Minister of Finance's speech. I do not know if we ever dealt with the issue, actually, of whether points of order or points of privilege would take away from those three hours. I would submit that three hours is three hours.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) let me put it this way: There have been many times when I have been on my feet, I recall, as Leader of the Opposition, when a former member, not himself but one of the former members opposite, interrupted me, I believe, on eight occasions. It took up to sixteen minutes of my hour. I had an hour, but sixteen minutes of it were taken up with points of order. So an hour is an hour, but it is an hour in the parliamentary sense. I am not going to get into this or that tonight. If the member wants to take a full three hours debate, who are we to try to stop the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans? We will let her take her three hours debating.

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

MS THISTLE: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can you please tell me how much time I have left, so I will be able to know where I stand on that matter? Thank you for the generosity from the other side, who are going to agree to give me my full complement of time. There is one thing about it, I will always hold the record for being able to respond to the Budget for the longest period of time, because the rules are changed this year.

Getting back to the real issue at hand, the response to the Budget, response to the Minister of Finance, I had begun to talk about education. I was saying that, this year the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education had stood in their places, and made press releases, talking about how tuition was the lowest across Canada. Well! Well! Well! I can almost hear your voice in my ears now, I say to the Minister of Education, because I proclaimed the same thing and you would not believe me. You did not do anything different.

It is true, the former Administration reduced post-secondary education costs by 25 per cent at Memorial University, and they froze tuition rates with the College of the North Atlantic. This government, under duress, I would say, did the same thing, they agreed to a freeze on tuition. Last year they agreed to a freeze on tuition, but they went to Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic and said: Okay, we are going to freeze tuition, but you find that money. It is going to cost $2 million each, Memorial University and College of the North Atlantic, and you find that money. They had to make serious cuts in their budget last year. People lost their jobs and programs were cut.

With the windfall of this new government in federal new dollars, they were able to say to Memorial University, and also to College of the North Atlantic: We are going to freeze tuition rates this year and we are going to give you offsetting dollars so you do not have to do the cruel, harsh things like you did last year. I give all the credit to Jessica Magalios and the Canadian Federation of Students. They were the ones who went to the Premier's Office and reminded him that a promise is a promise. They were so cleaver. Young people today are so cleaver. They staged a news conference, and behind their table on the wall they had excerpts from the Premier's speech when he had been debating the Atlantic Accord, when he said: A promise is a promise, Mr. Martin. They used the reverse tactic on the Premier, and it worked. So, young people are cleaver. All of the credit goes to Jessica Magalios and the Canadian Federation of Students and the student body at Memorial University for putting back the advertising, the words that were said by our Premier. They used the same tactics and threw it back at government and it worked. They announced that they would do that in their Blue Book but they tried to cancel it. So, at least the students, in the end, were the winners, and now the Minister of Education can stand up and say that this Province has the lowest tuition rate in Canada. It is almost like a chorus now because that is exactly what I said. Now that he is ten feet across the way, he is able to say it, too. So, what I said was true and, thank goodness, you lived up to that promise under duress.

I want to talk about teacher cuts. You know, this government has been using a lot of slick language in packaging this Budget. They have been saying that this is a great year in education. Seventy-five teaching units are going back into the system. That is good news, everybody out there. Now, you just look at how they package this. They said nothing about the 256 that they took out last year and they said nothing about the 145 who will come out this year. So, in actual fact, there are 401 teachers coming out of the system. Now they are not going to tell the general public that but I can see that the Members of the House of Assembly who came from the teaching profession, they are tweaking their ears right now and they know what I am saying is correct. They talk about seventy-five teachers going back in but there are 145 coming out this year and there was also 256 that came out last year, which made it 401. What is that going to do in rural Newfoundland where this government, and every government, has a moral obligation to provide every student in this Province with a core curriculum?

We are hearing lately that there is going to be a big change in rural Newfoundland in our school system. There has been a move afoot. In fact, it has already been announced that we can expect to see some changes in our school system. We already seen tonight on the news, on NTV, that the Mayor from Bishop's Falls is concerned about the fact that Leo Burke is going to close in Bishop's Falls. I know that the Minister of Human Resources and Employment would know about that school because she grew up in Bishop's Falls and she probably went to Leo Burke. She knows that it is a fine school and it was a great place to grow up and go to school.

Now that is going to be a big change for Bishop's Falls which had that school there for years and years and years. I guess the biggest concern that is facing the people in Bishop's Falls is: How will their children participate in extracurricular activities after school when there is a bus system that will only take them home after classes have ended and not stay around for those extracurricular activities? So, these are the kinds of things that people will have to work through. That is why I am encouraging this government to get out there and do what you are supposed to be doing. Get out there and consult with the people, because there are too many policies brought in by this government and no consultation is done. It is just, you take or leave it.

The biggest fear, I guess, that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is facing right now, if this government decides to close out schools in rural communities, what happens? Schools are the heartbeat of any community. I know full well when there was a danger of the school being closed in Badger, people were angry. They were angry with me because I was the MHA. At one point they wanted to chain me to the school bus so it could not leave the Town of Badger. So, I know how people feel when they are threatened with the loss of a service or a facility that is in their rural communities. But, we worked through that situation in Badger. We designated that school as a small necessary school that would remain open, under legislation that we passed in this House of Assembly, and guaranteed the people of Badger and other places like Badger - I think another one was Leading Tickles, that comes to mind now - that they would always have the opportunity to send their children to school; primary and elementary, and probably junior high. So, these are the kinds of things that this new government will be up against, but if they do not talk to the people, if they do not talk to the students, the parents, the teachers, the community at large, how will people grasp those changes?

Another frightening prospect is the fact that - for the remote communities that cannot be even serviced in the future to provide a good school curriculum program. They are saying in this school report that they may provide bursaries whereby families will actually send their children out of that rural community and into a larger centre for all of their highs school years, and maybe even lower grades. Now that is a frightening prospect. If I had a teenager in Grade 9, Grade 10, Grade 11 or Grade 12 and I knew that I would have to pack their suitcase in September and send them out to a school in a larger centre, I would be worried, because these are the turbulent years, the teenage years, and, as a parent, if you are not there to give them guidance and direction and get them through those years and they have to make a big adjustment by leaving a small community, that is a frightening prospect.

I think all governments have an obligation, a responsibility, to make sure that every student in this Province has the best kind of an education they can get. That will happen if this government says to the school boards around the Province - there are only four of them now: Go out and talk to the people that you are trying to make these changes with. Let the communities know if funding has been secured to upgrade facilities before you merge schools. Let parents, teachers and students know that they will not have to travel excessive distances over gravel roads on school buses for extended periods of time. Make sure that you are going to do all in your power to make the transition smooth if there is no other choice to be made, but consult with people, that is what it is all about.

It was interesting to look into the Department of Human Resources and Employment. Last year there was an announcement made by that department that they would give low income earners a break in their taxes. Did you know that was announced in Budget 2004? Those low income earners, do you know that they will not get a chance to get that tax break until 2006? Now what kind of propaganda packaging of a budget do you call that, when you make an announcement in 2004 that the lowest income earners in our Province are going to get a break on their taxes, but don't look for that break until 2006? That is a bit ridiculous. It is almost as bad as the Minister of Justice standing up in Corner Brook and saying that he is going to be doing a study. The Minister of Justice said in Corner Brook, he wants $400,000 to plan and design a new combined Supreme and Provincial Court facility for Corner Brook. He said that might never be used for another ten or twenty years. Now, isn't that a waste of taxpayers' money, when a minister of the Crown comes out and looks for $400,000 of the people's money, your money, my money, everybody's money, to do a study in case they build a Provincial or Supreme Court facility in Corner Brook in the next ten to twenty years? Tell them that one.

MR. T. MARSHALL: [The Minister's mike is not turned on at the beginning of his remarks] (Inaudible) courthouse in Corner Brook. In fact, what is says is that funds have been allocated to design and plan for a new combined courthouse in the City of Corner Brook, not to study when one is needed but to plan and design a combined courthouse in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Well now, Madam Chair, if I were the Minister of Justice I would not stand on a point of clarification for that, when he was in The Western Star saying that they may not build it for ten or twenty years. I have the clipping from The Western Star and you are saying they may not build it for ten or twenty years. What kind of a plan do you think would work in ten or twenty years time? That is a joke. If I were you, I wouldn't have stood and clarified that.

Getting back to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment: She talks, in her budget, about the commitment of this government to violence prevention in this Province. Now, I know that the centres have been funded after pleas from all over the Province. What she didn't say in her budget is that she asked each one of those centres to windup whatever they are working on out there in violence prevention, in these centres for women across the Province, in the next three months, and they were going to be given funding for one year only. She wants to do another study, mind you, on violence prevention. I can tell you, that the people in Grand Falls-Windsor, who have been operating out there for almost eight years, well know what needs to be done for violence prevention. In fact, they have been doing a wonderful job. They do not need another study done. The money that could be taken up in a study should be used right away to help prevent violence. There are community partners all over this Province, volunteers who are out there helping to prevent violence from happening, and once it happens they are there in the community to support and give direction. You do not need another study done. You need to take the money and put it directly into violence prevention.

I also want to talk about what this government is doing for student employment in the summer. They are very proud of saying that they have put $6.2 million into the Student Investment and Opportunities Corporation. All of the jobs that are created for students are generally in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There are not too many places where you can go into McDonald's or Tim Horton's in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and get a job. Naturally, those students depend on government to provide the funding for summer jobs. This minister and this government have reduced that funding by $3 million. That was normally $9 million. That means that hundreds of students will not get jobs this summer or next summer because funding has been cut.

Also, if you are promoting healthy living and you are promoting the fact that children should not go to school hungry, it was these same people who are now in government - when I was the minister of Youth, Services and Post-Secondary Education, the Kids Eat Smart Foundation had an issue on funding and they wanted me to act on it right away. I was able to say that we would advance their funding arrangement and that would solve their problem. What did this minister do this year? Normally, $500,000 goes into the Kids Eat Smart Foundation that provides school lunches for all over the Eastern Avalon. What did this minister and this government do? They cut it in half. Instead of giving $500,000 for school lunches they are giving $250,000.

You talk about the condition of schools and so on, everybody knows around the Province the condition of schools. All you have to do is ask the school board. Do you know what this government is going to do? They are going to spend $250,000 reviewing the condition of the schools before they ever begin to fix them. Now, why don't they take that $250,000 and start to repair the schools right away? Every school board that is in this Province reports to the Department of Education every year, their needs in restoration and repair and maintenance for every school under their responsibility. They do not need to do a study and pay out money again - $250,000.

In the past five minutes, I have indicated $1 million in studies that are going to be done: One on schools to see what condition they are in; $400,000 to design a courthouse were the plans might be used in ten or twenty years; and $250,000. they are going to look at funding now for violence prevention. You are talking about $1 million. On top of all of that, we have in our schools today where teachers are involved in a school lottery to raise funds. I have a form here where it allows employee payroll deductions so teachers can get involved in a 50-50 payday draw. The school boards around our Province are going to permit that. Is that what you are using for fundraising to get extra things for children in school, that you are going to allow a lottery to take place? This is something unheard of in the past; a 50-50 payday draw. This one is from the Eastern Education Foundation: Please complete the form and this will allow payroll deductions. All information provided is confidential and will only be used for the purpose of setting up the automatic payroll deduction. The winner will be picked by a random computer draw every second Friday starting the first draw on April 8. The first draw was actually last week. Can you imagine this going ahead in our school, a lottery draw where you share 50-50, the school gets to keep 50 per cent and the winner takes the balance, so they can do a fundraiser in school! This is terrible. This should never be.

This is talking about schools. Earlier today, I talked about what is going to happen with Transportation and Works. I think that is probably one of the alarming things. The Minister of Government Services stood in her place last year and announced that weigh scales would be closing throughout the Province. To add to that now this year, I am looking in the Budget for Transportation and Works, and on the Road Maintenance Program there is drop in salary levels of $1 million this coming year, and there is $1million put into Purchased Services. What does that tell the people of this Province. It looks clear to me that government is intending to contract out a lot of the work on road maintenance that was done by our own government employees.

The Minister of Transportation and Works has already given notice, by way of a news release, that he intends to close thirteen highway depots around our Province. Anyone who had worked in those depots will be going from permanent to seasonal. I can understand people, mayors around the Province, getting concerned about that. I heard a mayor from Bonavista a few nights ago on Open Line, and she was really concerned that the depot in Port Rexton was closing. People depend so much on every job that is out there today in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. She was concerned that the people who worked in that depot are now going to be seasonal and also what is going to be happening. There is going to be no summer maintenance on any of the equipment that is there, or maybe there is not going to be any equipment there. Maybe it will all be contracted out and there will be no equipment there. What will happen in the future, the people who will be classified from permanent to seasonal will probably be eliminated in a matter of a year or two. Who knows what the future is for those people who now have been designated as seasonal. These are the kinds of concerns.

When you look at the issue today of the crab fishery, and yesterday and every since the ninth when the season should have been open and is open, but these fishers are not able to go out and harvest their catch because they are in conflict right now with government policy. We had our Minister of Fisheries who had given those fishers assurance that before a new policy would be brought down by this government, there would be full dialogue, there would be good interaction, a point where everyone would sit around and discuss the matter and see what the objections were and see what the concerns were. There would be nobody going to implement a policy that had any obstacle in the way from anybody earning a decent living.

What are we saying today? We heard our Premier, for the past three days in the media, saying that the Minister of Fisheries and he, himself, and his government - I think he might have said his government at the end of that sentence or maybe he just meant the Minister of Fisheries and himself - had developed this policy by looking at the Dunne report. He admitted there was no consultation once it came to government, the Dunne report. He admitted that the Minister of Fisheries and himself and any government officials had not done any consultation. They had taken the recommendations selectively from the Dunne report, took out what they wanted, and decided to implement it as policy being the least bit concerned about the notes that Eric Dunne had put in the Dunne report saying that, unless all people were onside, unless all stakeholders were onside, it would be foolhardy to try to implement a new policy with this arrangement.

There are plenty of members sitting in this House of Assembly who are affected by the crab fishery and every fishery around this Province. In fact, none of us are exempt. Even the members from St. John's depend on all rural Newfoundland and Labrador coming in and doing their business in St. John's. There would be no Home Depot opening on April 7 if it wasn't for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They would not survive with just the people in St. John's buying building materials and different things from the Home Depot, or any retail outlet, for that matter, in St. John's, or any service industry or any tourist industry in our Province. We all depend on each other here, directly or indirectly. What the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries are trying to do is a one-sided approach. You toe the line, do what I say, or forget it. That is not going to work. We saw that today and there is going to be more unrest, I expect.

I want to talk about health care issues. I had a call from an elderly lady in her nineties in Grand Falls-Windsor who could not believe the bill she got from the hospital when she had to get an ambulance. You can go anywhere you like in Grand Falls-Windsor and it won't take you longer than ten minutes to get where you are going. No matter where you go in Grand Falls-Windsor, it will only take you about ten minutes. This poor lady had to go to the hospital by ambulance and return by ambulance. She wondered if there was anything I could do about getting that reduced for her. She had to pay $115, mind you, to go to the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor and another $115 to come back from the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor, $230 probably for a total of ten minutes in the ambulance.

Everybody knows that a women over ninety years old, or a man over ninety years old, is on a fixed income, or they probably have home care or their family member is looking after them. Who would have the nerve to ask a senior citizen like that for $230 just for going from point A to point B in Grand Falls-Windsor? I think that is ridiculous and it should never be. It went up last year from $85 to $140. Last year was a hard Budget, they said they had a lot of hard decisions to make, but they have not looked back since, whether or not they can reduce some of those excessive fees for seniors in particular. You know, if you had a compassionate government they would have reviewed those fees this year and said: Well, maybe we can ease up on some of those now. Maybe we do not have to charge to get into the park if you are a senior citizen. Maybe we do not have to charge you $180 for your licence when it used to be $140 and maybe we will not charge you $230 if you want to get an ambulance to the hospital.

Why don't they review those rates this year? They are in a much better position, and next year they will be in an even better financial position in this Province. In the election year they are going to have money to burn. There will be no cash deficit, because it is all being manufactured to make sure they will be totally flushed out by election year, but in fact there is really no deficit this year. They have manufactured a deficit so they could run out and put it into The Rooms and various school buildings across the Province when there was such an urgent need for Alzheimer patients. They forgot about Alzheimer patients and their families who are going through such turmoil and trying to live day by day. What a difference this government could have made in the lives of Alzheimer patients, being able to stay in their own homes a little longer and having their family being able to look after them a little bit longer. You know we do not have adequate Alzheimer facilities for caring for our elderly people in this Province. The only one that I know of in Central Newfoundland is the Hugh Twomey Center in Botwood, and they always have a list as long as your arm. That means a lot of Alzheimer patients cannot go into the proper facility, they are in our regular senior-care homes and they are not equipped to handle Alzheimer patients. If this government had a bit of compassion, they would have spent the money and provided the drugs for our Alzheimer patients so a lot of them would be able to have assisted living at home in their own familiar surroundings.

There is also that matter of the ferry rates they raised last year. They raised ferry rates by 10 per cent last year, 5 per cent this year, and 5 per cent for the next three years. We all know there are a lot of places that are isolated, they do not have a road system and they must use ferries, whether they are going for a doctor's appointment, a dentist appointment, or for any services outside their community. They have to use a ferry. This government chose last year to increase ferry rates, and they said they would not do it.

We also have a situation on Fogo Island, the hospital out there, a brand new facility that should have twenty beds in it. It should have twenty beds to look after the people around Fogo Island. What did this government do with that facility? They crept in like a thief in the night. There were twenty beds to open in that facility on Fogo Island and they crept in like a thief in the night and took out ten beds. Wasn't that a horrible thing to do to people who needed these services? Can you imagine a government that has $117 million in the bank, a $117 million they can wave around, all kinds of money, and they decided to take ten beds out of the new hospital on Fogo Island so people would not be able to be admitted when they needed to be admitted. Now, what kind of a government is that?

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo stands in this House day after day and tells us about the calls he gets from senior citizens who cannot be accommodated in the Fogo Island Hospital because there are no beds. The rooms are there, the walls are there, it is a beautiful new facility, the beds were there, but this new government crept in like a thief in the night and took away the ten beds. How many seniors are out there wanting to get into that facility and cannot get in, while the same government decides that they will take $47 million, unnecessarily, and pay off The Rooms, a provincial museum, before the ribbon is even cut to open it? The ribbon is not going to be cut until June 29.

I saw there, a while ago, that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is going to plan a big ceremony to open The Rooms on June 29, and they will come from far and wide to look at the building and express how happy they are to see it. We are all glad that The Rooms is there, but you did something you did not have to do. You did not have to pay off the mortgage before you ever set foot in it. You did not have to do that. There was nobody knocking on your door saying, you better pay this mortgage. I think Lana Payne had it best. I saw a column she had in the paper a while ago. You know, Lana Payne who writes in The Telegram. I think it is Sunday's or Saturday's. Maybe it is Saturday's. She said that this government decided to pay off the mortgage before they bought breakfast for their children. It is just like paying off your mortgage before you bought breakfast for your children. That is what they decided to do. That was a hard blow. I have to read her exact words, because I might be doing her a disservice if I did not: The debt repayment is a little like rushing out to pay off your mortgage while your kids go without proper schoolbooks or dental care, which is, basically, what I said. This government, in their wisdom, decided to run out and pay off the mortgage on The Rooms. Not one person has stepped foot inside and the ribbon was not cut.

They claimed they never had the money to look after the Alzheimer drugs. They claimed they never had the money to put up the new auditorium, the Mealy Mountains auditorium, where there is not another venue in Labrador for people to express their arts and culture. They never had the money for that. They never had the money to put the ten beds back into the Fogo Island Hospital. They never had the money to build a cancer clinic. They never had the money to finish off the Grand Bank hospital. They did not put the CT scanner on the Burin Peninsula. They had none of that money. They can charge seniors $230 to get an ambulance if they are forced to get one. Still, for all of that, they had $117 million. Can you imagine! I think it is the first time since Confederation that any government that sits here in this House of Assembly could say: My golly, we have $117 million.

If they asked anybody in this House - I wonder did they ask the Member for Windsor-Springdale, what could they do with the $117 million? I wonder did they ask you? No, they never asked the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I wonder did they ask the Member for Burin-Placentia West what he needed down on the Burin Peninsula. I do not say they asked him. Did they ask the Member for Gander, I wonder, if there was anything that he needed? They certainly never asked the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, but I asked them, and I asked them quite often, over and over and over. It was just like a broken record. Based on what we saw tonight on television and the cancer statistics that are going to occur in this Province in the coming years for the aging population we have, we need good facilities.

If they asked the Member for Windsor-Springdale what he needed, I am sure that the cancer clinic would have been top on his list, because he knows how important that is to his constituents as well as my constituents. The Member for Baie Verte would also know and the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune would know. I do not know about the Member for Lewisporte, because he had an article in the paper that he agreed with the priority of the cancer clinic but he could not say about the location. That is a sad commentary as far as I am concerned. If you have to be wondering about the location, when you are the Minister of Transportation and Works, whether or not his government should agree to a new cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor or somewhere else, that is pretty sad commentary I think.

There is not one person in this House who can stand up and say they have not been touched by cancer; not one. There are a lot of people concerned around rural Newfoundland and Labrador, especially about the Hay report. When you get a contingent of people that would turn up on Good Friday morning instead of going to church, and their main concern is the health care facilities in Stephenville East, St. George's and Port au Port - and, no sir, their MHA did not turn up for that rally. They have concerns, they are frightened to death that they are going to be cutback and that facilities will be downgraded where they are today. Imagine, a brand new hospital in Stephenville and they are saying now that they might be bringing in meals from Corner Brook. Good Lord! They are also saying that they may not do any obstetrics in Stephenville. My goodness, if you are not going to do any obstetrics in Port aux Basques and Stephenville you would be frightened to death to have a baby in that particular part of the Province, because you know you would be on an ambulance somewhere trying to get through the Wreck House in the wind storms that are on the go out there.

All we are asking from this government is simple: Do what you promised. You promised you would be open and accountable. You promised if there were going to be any changes made, that would be a major decision, you would engage everyone that was going to be affected. We have seen that you are not about to do that. We have seen that today and yesterday with the crab fishery. You are not intending to change your policy. A meeting is no good because here are the rules you are setting down and there is no room for flexibility or interaction.

We saw you bring down changes to the school board. It is early, do the consultation. I am saying to government: Do the consultation. We know what happened when the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation did not do the consultation on snowmobile fees in this Province, on Trailway fees. You cannot be a government that is top down, where you set the rules and the population falls in line. Show a compassionate side, you have the money. There is no excuse for any of the health care issues that I have raised tonight and others will raise in days to come. You have the money, show a compassionate side, do what is necessary, make the right choices, and I think people will thank you in the end. If you make choices like paying off The Rooms instead of looking after your ill people you are going to have people get up and tell you exactly what they think of you like I am doing tonight. You have an opportunity to turn that situation around, there is no excuse.

Do what you need to do to ensure the health of people in this Province, the education, the well- being, and everything else, the economy, will fall in line. What we have seen now is someone coming up with a grandiose idea, like the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development figuring that he has the idea that economic development only belongs on the Trans-Canada Highway in this Province. Rural Newfoundland was around long before the Trans-Canada Highway and I hope it will be in years to come.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I do now move that the House adjourn for the remainder of the sitting day and report back tomorrow. I believe there will be, after Question Period, Private Member's Day dealing with the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All of those in favour of the adjournment motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Carried.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 13, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 13, at 2:00 p.m.