April 26, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 16


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we have Member's Statements as follows -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I left the House early on Thursday to travel to Corner Brook for the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agricultural's Annual General Meeting. I got back into St. John's on Friday at about 4:50 p.m. and reviewed Hansard, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a point, and the point is a serious one. It is about unparliamentary language in the House. I will read page 525 of Marleau where it says, "The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order."

Mr. Speaker, after reviewing Hansard and have it here this morning, I submit that the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday afternoon with respect to the Member for Gander are not only unparliamentary, but are a personal insult to him and thus to all members, and, as a matter of fact, are obscene. Let me quote what those words were: "...that the Member for Gander talks about - goes on the Open Line - and the little job where his nose got brown first. Everybody knows that phrase in Newfoundland and Labrador. His nose was brown for awhile, trying to impress the leader, trying to impress the Premier, to see if he might get considered for Cabinet. It has got to the point now where the whole head and good part of his body is pretty brown."

He goes on to say - everyone can have a laugh at it if you want, but it is not so laughable when it is directed at you personally. "The Member for Gander who got the gum in his hair, with the brown nose and the brown head and the brown shoulders and the brown rest of it. There is a good bit brown now. There is one fellow - I heard two expressions lately." The Leader of the Opposition said, "For him to breathe these days,..." referring to the Member for Gander, "...he has vents in his heels. It is the only way he can get a breath of air there is that much brown."

"The Member for Gander got gum in his hair. Guess how it got there? The Premier swallowed it." Mr. Speaker, he said, "The Premier swallowed the gum." Great laugh. This is not a bar room. This is not a (inaudible) house and you are not in New York. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you are in the House of Assembly and you should stand up and withdraw the remarks that you made about my colleague, the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The phrase escapes me right now but usually if one has a serious point to make, I say to the Government House Leader, you do not, yourself, try to be sarcastic when you make it. That is not to take away from the point that he made but we can do without the sarcasm as well.

I was not here, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday afternoon myself. I was also on the West Coast. So I am not familiar with the comments to which the Government House Leader referred, I was absent as well. I will get an opportunity to read it, I have a copy right here. I just say to the Government House Leader, unlike yourself, I have not had an opportunity to read it. I first heard about this now when you raised the issue. I am not in a position to comment on it, as Opposition House Leader, but we certainly await the ruling of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair became familiar with the exchange on Friday. I heard part of it but was in the process of meeting with some officials in my office during the time when another one of our presiding officers was in the Chair. I do believe that, as the Government House Leader has said, it is quite clear in Marleau and Montpetit that, "...the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order."

We should note that all members of this House should take it upon themselves to treat each other with the utmost respect, with the utmost integrity and treat each other as fellow parliamentarians. Our roles in this public service is not always an easy role, however, we do believe that it is important in a democracy that the House maintain proper order and decorum at all times.

On the basis of the fact that I did have occasion to read the exchange, and am familiar with it, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would withdraw his comments.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand, according to the rules, that a withdrawal has to be unequivocal; however, before I do that, I would like to point out, for the members who were in the House at the time, most members understood the context - you cannot tell by reading the words - that it was a good part in jest. Many of the members opposite were actually laughing out loud.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that the joke was at the expense of the Member for Gander. He was in the House and did not rise and raise any objection at the time. The House Leader adjourned the debate, rose no objection at the time. There were thirty members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) was done in that manner.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition will know that, under the circumstances, I did permit him to have some sentences there; however, I would ask him at this stage to withdraw his comments - or accept the Chair's ruling, I should say, and withdraw his comments immediately.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will do exactly that. Out of respect for the Chair and your ruling, I withdraw the remarks.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has notice of the following members' statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has members' statements as follows: The hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour two young athletes in my district who have recently represented the Province in competition overseas. Mr. Speaker, Jarrett Rose of Victoria and Gerald Winsor of Harbour Grace are hopefuls for the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Soccer Team that will represent this Province at the 2005 Canada Summer Games in Regina, Saskatchewan, this August.

Gerald Winsor and Jarrett Rose were with twenty-two Newfoundland and Labrador team hopefuls who were in Manchester, England, for seven days last month. The trip included participation in exhibition games and observing a professional soccer game between national teams from England and Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, the coaches of this team used this trip to evaluate the players and decide who will make the cut for their team in Regina this summer. Mr. Speaker, both Jarrett and Gerald performed very well on the field during this trip and we are hopeful they will be selected to represent our Province in national competition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Jarrett Rose of Victoria, Gerald Winsor of Harbour Grace, and indeed all participants of this soccer team, for their hard work, and in wishing them the best of luck in their competition at the national level.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rebecca Russell, a native of Lethbridge, Bonavista Bay, on her outstanding hockey career which St. Lawrence University Saints in New York State.

Rebecca is about to graduate from St. Lawrence University; but, Mr. Speaker, in forty-one hockey games this past season, Rebecca had thirty-two goals, thirty-eight assists, and was the team's leading scorer. Rebecca also led in power play goals, tied for first for the most short-handed goals, and tied in game-winning goals. She had the best plus-minus record on her team, with plus thirty-one. Mr. Speaker, Rebecca Russell was also named a first team all-league all-star, putting her among the top university hockey players in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I have just learned, in conversation with her parents, that an awards banquet was held last evening and Rebecca was named Athlete of the Year by St. Lawrence University.

Mr. Speaker, upon her graduation, Rebecca will be heading to Calgary this fall where she will play professional women's hockey with Extreme Oval of the National Women's Hockey League. She hopes to pursue her masters degree with aspirations of coaching at the prep school level.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to rise with me today in congratulating Rebecca Russell on her hockey career and wishing her every success as she pursues new challenges in the fields of education and athletics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a group of courageous volunteers who give up their free time to ensure their community remains safe from the threat of fire.

Mr. Speaker, the St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove Volunteer Fire Department gathered April 9 at the Lions Club in English Harbour West to honour their own. It was an opportunity for over 150 of the town's citizens, including members of its municipal council, to honour the volunteer firefighters for another successful year of keeping its citizens safe from the threat of fire, and for being ready just in case the unthinkable happens.

Mayor Max Taylor and Chief Earl Lawrence participated in the presentation of long-service awards to many of the volunteer force. Also, Mr. Speaker, Max Taylor presented Chief Lawrence with a special award from the Newfoundland and Labrador Fire Chiefs and Firemen's Association, in recognition of his twenty-five years of volunteer service to the Volunteer Fire Department.

Mr. Speaker, it is volunteers like these who keep all of our Province's communities safe. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all of the dedicated volunteers who volunteer day and night to keep their communities safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to several youth bowling teams who have won the provincial championship in their division and will be representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the YBC national championships in British Columbia in early May.

First of all are two teams that bowl out of St. Pat's Lanes, and I have put these first because St. Pat's is my Alma Mater. The bantam girls' team consists of Jennifer Hogan, Stephanie Caines, Amber Williams, Ashley Fitzgerald, Dominique Linehan, and coach Mercedes Escott. The senior girls, also out of St. Pat's, are Brittany Foley, Andrea Tucker, Sharla Nurse, Kristina Nurse, Jessica Boundridge, and coach Phil Foley.

The junior boys' champs came out of Plaza Bowl, and the team consisted of Benjamin Morgan, Jimmy Carrigan, Colin Gosse, Ian Veinott, Taylor Powell, and coach Ken Noftall. The junior boys' singles champ is Jeff Sturge from Plaza Bowl, while the bantam boys will be represented in singles competition by Lucas Tilley from Holiday Lanes.

Mr. Speaker, also representing our Province will be the bantam and senior boys' teams from Pearl Gate Lanes as well as the junior girls' team from Corner Brook.

YBC makes a tremendous contribution to the youth of our Province, and I ask all members of the House to extend thanks to coaches and volunteers and offer these young players our congratulations and best wishes as they head out to represent us in British Columbia.

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 a constituent of mine, Cayley Linehan of Grand Falls-Windsor, a talented junior high school student who was awarded first place honours for her project at the nineteenth Annual Central Newfoundland Regional Science Fair, held April 8, 2005, in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, this science fair provided an excellent forum for students all over the Central area to showcase their talents and innovative ideas, and it was well represented by students from all over the region.

Cayley is a student from the Grenfell Intermediate School in Grand Falls-Windsor and she received the "Best of Fair" award for her project entitled, "Taxes a Pain? Taxus a Cure".

Cayley will now have the opportunity to represent the Central region when she attends the Canada-wide science fair to be held in Vancouver, May 15 -23, 2005, and she will be accompanied by two other winners from Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Cayley Linehan and to wish her continued success as she heads to the national competition in May.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise and offer congratulations to Matthew Button. Matthew, a sixteen-year-old Level II student from Wareham, recently won first place in the Provincial Air Cadet League of Canada Effective Speaking Contest. The event included cadets from Corner Brook, St. John's, St. Anthony and Indian Bay. This accomplishment has provided Matthew with the opportunity to represent our Province in the National Air Cadet League of Canada Effective Speaking Contest being held in Calgary on June 9, 2005.

Matthew has engaged in competitive speaking events since 2002 when, in his initial competition, he finished first in the Junior Division at the Tri-Service Speak-Off held at the Cabot Navel Complex. His impressive list of accolades also includes first place finishes at several regional Lion Speak-offs.

Matthew's oratorical skills are augmented by a self-confidence and self-awareness that belies his young age.

Matthew has now taken his considerable experience and knowledge of public speaking and become a mentor to younger cadets in the Indian Bay area. An Effective Speakers Program employed by the air cadets provides Matthew with the opportunity to continually improve his own skills while encouraging and improving the development of others.

We should always take time to acknowledge the young men and women of this great Province, such as Matthew Button, who give us so much to be proud of. I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Matthew and wishing him the best as he competes in the upcoming National Air Cadet League Effective Speaking Contest in Calgary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise this afternoon to inform my hon. colleagues of a positive visit last week to Labrador. Last week I had the honour of presiding in the opening of the new Supreme Courthouse in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and also participated in a: Gathering on Labrador Justice, History and Culture, at Northwest River in Sheshatshiu. I was pleased to have been joined by the hon. Tom Rideout, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and the MHA for Lake Melville. I would also like to acknowledge the MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for attending both the court opening and the gathering.

The new Supreme Courthouse is a result of years of hard work and collaboration of government, courts and Aboriginal communities in Labrador. The design of the Judicial Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is unique; incorporating concepts which reflect openness to Aboriginal traditions, including an Aboriginal healing room, and circle motif in the courtroom. The circle healing room will be devoted to the use and application of Aboriginal restorative justice techniques. The symbolic design encompasses many concepts, which support the unique cultural aspects of Labrador and the Aboriginal culture, and were well received by the Aboriginal community.

Mr. Speaker, participants from the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Bar Association, the courts and Aboriginal communities exchanged stories and experiences during the gathering. The discussions were quite powerful and reflected the unique legal traditions and the challenges of a mixture of cultures and languages, which continue to exist today.

The events last week were positive and a step toward better understanding Aboriginal traditions, cultures and people relating to the justice system. The discussions represent a new beginning, an openness to the rich traditions of the Aboriginal past and a willingness to include them, to include all voices in a meaningful and practical way in the day-to-day operations of the justice system.

Mr. Speaker, during the trip, I also had the opportunity to tour the Labrador Correctional Centre and present certificates recognizing twenty years of service to correctional officers in that facility. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Paul Boland, Toby Bauld, Sam Flanigan, Kevin Stanley, Steve Pye, Donald Hallinghan, Maurice Best, as well as Robert Quigley who was presented with his retirement certificate after twenty-five years of government service. I would also like to recognize Toby Bauld who received his Commission for being promoted to the rank of Lieutenant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. This is, indeed, a very positive piece of justice infrastructure in our Province. It is certainly much needed.

I remember three or four years ago being shown some photographs by Justice O'Regan when he was stationed in the former courthouse in Goose Bay. I guess this one is a far cry from what were depicted in those photographs. The conditions were not exactly ideal for a Supreme Court courthouse. There were no council rooms. There were no adequate facilities for juries; privacy was an issue and so on. So, it is nice to see that we have a new modern day structure in place. Also, the design is quite unique. It is just not your typical bricks and mortar here. We have incorporated into it, by way of design, Aboriginal traditions. We need to thank some people for doing that and having the foresight to do it. Included amongst those would be Justice Fowler, who is the Supreme Court Justice there right now, as well as Chief Justice Green, and we cannot overlook the valuable contributions of Deputy Minister John Cummings and Assistant Deputy Minister Chris Curran who played a big role in making sure that this project turned out to be all that it was.

I am very pleased to have been the minister who approved the project in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: It is nice to see. I certainly hope that the people of the Big Land make great use of this brand new facility.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was my pleasure to be in Labrador for this occasion, which I think is significant in the judicial history of Labrador. Not nearly the physical notion of building a new courthouse for which the current government and the previous government were given due credit for undertaking but also for the fact that this opening was held in conjunction with a seminar on Aboriginal justice hosted by the Law Society at which very important issues were brought forward by both the Innu and Inuit First Nations, and the fact that they fully participated in these hearings was itself of significance. The theme, Mr. Speaker, of the opening, the minister's own remarks and those of others, including Chief Justice Green, were about the necessity of the justice system in Labrador to be sensitive to the needs of all people.

May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The sensitivity and the need for sensitivity by the court system and the judicial system to the Aboriginal people of Labrador. Brought to attention many times was the failure of the judicial system and the court system to understand the ways of the Innu and Inuit, and in many respects, the language and culture. The notion of the thirst for justice amongst Aboriginal people was again, part of the theme and a commitment was made, both by the minister and by the Chief Justice, to endeavour to ensure that the judicial system in all of Labrador will respond in the future to the unique needs and circumstances of the Aboriginal communities.

It was indeed an event of significance, which is why I took the time to attend, and was very pleased to be a part of this historic occasion. The courthouse is in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, but the courthouse is a courthouse that serves all of Labrador - Labrador West, North, South, Central Labrador - and now, with the commitment of the Minister of Justice and the Chief Justice, will endeavour to serve well all of the peoples of Labrador as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The events which occurred in the House of Assembly last week, with the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East answering questions and making announcements related to the Department of Health and Community Services, is very unusual to say the least.

The Executive Council Act, section 5, establishes principles that a minister presides over a department and is responsible for that department. The Executive Council Act also clearly states in section 6 that, in the absence of the minister, an acting minister would have that same responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: In light of the provisions in the Executive Council Act, when is government going to deal with this issue in a straightforward manner and make an official announcement from the Department of Health that confirms the hasty policies that the member opposite blurted out last week in the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, if government - and we, being the government - did not make that announcement last week, the member would be on her feet today asking us why we are going to let those reports and recommendations stand that would have affected women, particularly on the West and Southwest Coast of the Province.

The fact of the matter is this: Irrespective of the Executive Council Act, it is up to government to decide which minister responds to which issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) break the act.

MR. E. BYRNE: We are not breaking the act in any way, shape or form.

The Minister Responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Status of Women took the opportunity last week to make an announcement, of behalf of the government, that we felt was important to women in the Province. In doing so, she made an announcement on behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East made some very significant promises in the House of Assembly last week. We, on this side of the House, want to be sure that the Premier and the government will keep the promises that they have made.

Under section 25 of the appropriation accounts of the Financial Administration Act it clearly stipulates that no public money be spent unless there is a balance available in the appropriations authorized by the Legislature.

Now I have to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is he committed to allocating the necessary resources to see that the promises are kept, that the member made last week, and will the Legislature have to make amendments to the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services in order to accommodate these promises?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say, no, we are not going to follow the direction of the former government when the Auditor General, year after year after year, told how they violated the Financial Administration Act. We are going to follow the Financial Administration Act. We are going to adhere to it, and money will not be spent that is not appropriate. There are two avenues to do it, if it is not appropriate.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are two avenues. If the Member for Bay of Islands will listen, I will give the answer - if he is trying to shout me down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There are two avenues, I would say. One is to bring a Supplementary Supply Bill to this House, which we have done. The other is a special warrant, where the House is not sitting and there is no other manner in which to deal with it.

We tabled one special warrant here because the physicians were not paid by March 10. They would not be able to get paid if it was not done, because there were (inaudible) new physicians -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) use their money to pay the VON.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - fee-for-service physicians came on stream in this Province.

What the member is talking about, she does not know what she is talking about. She is talking about a practice that their government practiced for years, and she is so used to that practice that she expects us to do the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this much I do know. This board has an accumulated debt of $28 million. Is the minister going to ante up the money to pay for the promises made by the member next to him, or is he going to force the board, who already has a $28 million debt, to pay for this service - in fact, increasing their own debt - or is he going to force them to cut more services and more programs to balance their books in order to do it? It has to be one or the other.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member should understand that a $28 million debt has nothing to do with the estimates and spending for this year. That is a debt of the past. The $125 million debt -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the minister. I ask members for their co-operation so he can present his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If they do not want an answer, they should not ask the question.

There is a $125 million accumulated debt by boards in this Province, almost every penny accumulated even while you were a minister in government - a good portion of that debt. What we are doing this year, Mr. Speaker, is, we are giving the boards an additional $20 million to assist in meeting their budget targets, allowing another $11 million for transition and money for inflation in that process; $31 million new money this year to enable a balanced budget. Then we are going to look at the long-term debt that is there, the $125 million, and over the next ten years look at dealing with that and getting rid of the debt, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is obvious, they are going to have to cut more services in order to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Health to clarify exactly what is happening. Recommendation 164 related to baby deliveries in Port au Basques is off the table, recommendation 151 related to food services in Stephenville is off the table, recommendations 170 and 174 related to baby deliveries in Stephenville are off the table, and recommendation 136 related to protective care services in Stephenville Crossing is off the table.

Minister, can you confirm, are these recommendations really off the table and can you confirm whether recommendation 172 which relates to the transferring of long-term care patients from Corner Brook to Stephenville is also off the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know which one of the ten questions she wants me to answer first. A minister here in government -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Now she doesn't want to listen. She shouts when I try to give an answer, Mr. Speaker. If she doesn't want it, don't ask the question.

The answer is that this government is elected to establish policy. We work in co-ordination with boards to implement and put policy through in the Province. That is our responsibility. The member representing the area and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment was congratulated by the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, in Stephenville for making this response. Are you happy with it? Do you want it reversed, or what is wrong? Can you answer that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question for the hon. member. There were a number of recommendations that the Member for Stephenville East committed to last week. I am asking you, as the acting Minister of Health, to confirm these for me. They were recommendations 164, 151, 170, 174 and 136.

I also asked the hon. member if the recommendations I just listed are off the table altogether, gone, forgotten about, and if he can confirm for me whether recommendation 172, which is relative to the transferring of long-term care patients from Corner Brook to Stephenville, is also off the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister spoke for government on the first five recommendations that you referenced there. She articulated government policy and that is factual and she eliminated -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The last question, on recommendation, I think, 174, the last one you asked, I answered that here in this Legislature two hours ago for the Estimates Committee here. I answered that to the Member for Bay of Islands. If you want me to repeat it again, I will repeat it. We will deal with boards in this Province. We will work forward in co-operation with my department and with boards that are there. We will deal with situations as they arise and we will make the appropriate decision on all aspects as they are coming out of the Hay report or any other report that we are asked to deal with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Now, Mr. Speaker, referring to the Grenfell board, can the Acting Minister of Health confirm for me what the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East said last week in the House, that all the recommendations in the Hay Group report relating to the Grenfell board is now off the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is in Hansard what the minister indicated, representing government. You have a copy of that. She has indicated on obstetrics and surgery and so on in Port aux Basques and Stephenville. By the way, there is no obstetrician in Port aux Basques anyway, to my knowledge. Those decisions are being articulated here, the government policy there. I do not know what else she wants us to do. They are unhappy, Mr. Speaker, because we announced it, and now they are complaining. If we do not announce it they complain and when we announce it they complain. I do not know what they want on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not prepared to stand in his place today and give the same assurances to the people of the Grenfell region as it relates to this report.

My next question, Mr. Speaker. At the very least, minister, can you stand in your place today and tell the people of the St. Anthony region that the recommendations in the Hay Group report relating to obstetrics and genecology will not be cut from their hospital or will you stand and explain to them why there is a double standard in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Hay report was done on the Grenfell, that is now a part of the Labrador Grenfell board. The dynamics and delivery of service has changed, and that will be done -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: She does not want to hear the answer. She asked a question. I do not shout when she is asking a question. I do not know why she wants to shout when I am giving an answer. If she wants me to answer, I will answer it, if not I will sit down.

There is a new dynamics with the Labrador Grenfell board now and they will be done in consultation with the departments and boards to effect the best possible delivery of services in that region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that we cannot get the acting minister to confirm what the member said in a straightforward answer in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly last Tuesday, a week ago today, the Minister of Fisheries stated, in reference to the production quota system, and I quote, these are his words again: If people do not want that, we can pull back. We can pull back and we can let the market and free enterprise drive the industry. When I asked the minister this question, the House Leader confirmed that was the government position. Later in the week, he refused to answer it.

I ask the Premier, because he was not here that day: Do you agree with your minister that free enterprise should govern the industry and are you willing to pull back this production quota system like the minister says, something fish harvesters have continuously been requesting of you and your government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and hon. members opposite, that I fully agree with the position that has been taken by the Minister of Fisheries with the raw material sharing program that he has put forward. It is something that we have taken under consultation in Cabinet. We have given it very serious consideration. We have looked at the recommendations of Mr. Dunne and others. It is a decision that we have not taken lightly. I fully support his position which he has put forward. Do not try to put words in his mouth. Do not try to cherry-pick some of the words that he said and imply that he meant something else. You heard what he said in his answer before this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You know exactly what he meant and we made our decision on this, so we are moving forward.

However, having said that, what we are certainly prepared to do, we are prepared to sit down and have a discussion, at any particular point in time, with the members of the union. We have said it all along and we continue to be ready, willing and able and available to have a discussion with the members of the union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me ask about some words. These are not our words. We are not putting words in anybody's mouth. We are quoting exact words of a Minister of the Crown of the government. In a media scrum outside this House, broadcast all over Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Fisheries stated that if fish harvesters did not want a production quota system and wanted free enterprise to govern the industry - they were his words - fine with him. Fine with me, he said.

I ask the Premier, again: If both of you agree, and if it is fine with him that we can take it off the table, why won't you allow him to do so? He obviously wants to take this off the table. Why won't you allow him to do so, Mr. Premier? Because in your words - not mine - it is only a pilot project, you have said publicly. Why not delay it - if it is only a pilot project and you do not know if it is going to work - have the consultation that you personally promised the union and the fish harvesters, and try this next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to bring to the attention of visitors that they are not to participate in any way in any of the discussions on the floor of the House. The Chair's tolerance for interruptions has reached the stage where we will not be able to tolerate any further interruptions. If there are any more interruptions, the Chair will cause the galleries to be cleared.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with going down the road of free enterprise and the market determining what happens in the fishery is that the vast majority - the vast majority - of the people in the industry do not want that to happen. There are some people who want free enterprise, and I admire them for that. There are some people who want the market to determine what happens with price, what happens with plants, what happens with harvesters, what happens with everything in the industry, and what happens with communities, but the vast majority of people in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether in the harvesting sector or the processing sector, Mr. Speaker, whether plant workers or fishermen, do not want the market to determine what happens with their boat, their plant, their community, their fish and their livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, if they did, they would not have been crying for individual quotas in the harvesting sector. They would not be demanding government intervene in the various parts of the industry that they have always demanded us to intervene in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is kind of strange that this same government decided to let the market and the big companies like FPI close a plant in Harbour Breton and all of a sudden now you are not for the big companies and free market; you want to control things.

Mr. Speaker, in his comments last week, the Minister of Fisheries stated that if fish harvesters did not agree to the production quota system - again, his words - they should not come crying to government to address any other concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Now that his Minister of Fisheries has, in fact, de facto, quit - because that is a matter of resignation, that he says: Don't come to me if you have any other problems unless I get my way on this system - how can he expect this minister to have any credibility? When is he going to replace this minister with one that might deal with the true and legitimate concerns of the people of the Province, no matter where they are?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the people last week when I made those comments is, if you want the market to determine what happens in the industry, then let the market determine what happens in the industry, but don't come back - and there is no point in coming back. If you want the market to deal with it, you cannot come back after a place like Fogo runs into trouble, or a place like New Harbour runs into trouble, or a place like Harbour Breton runs into trouble, or wherever, and ask government to step in, to intercede, to try and bail everybody out. That is what has happened in the past. We have been half pregnant all along; that is what the trouble is with the industry here.

If people want collective bargaining, we are prepared to dress up the Collective Bargaining Act to address their concerns. If people want control over a product, where it moves in the Province, we are prepared to deal with that. If they want limits on corporate concentration, we are prepared to deal with that. If they want the market to deal with it then we are prepared to let the market deal with it, but bear in mind where the chips are going to fall (inaudible).

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not able to tolerate any further interruptions. The Speaker orders that the public galleries be cleared and that they remain cleared until the Speaker can be assured by the Sergeant-at-Arms that the House can proceed with the parliamentary agenda in an uninterrupted manner.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

By the Chair's calculation, there is eleven minutes left in Question Period. I think that would be approximately the time and we will let it go at eleven, if that is agreeable to the House Leaders.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen quite clearly today in this Question Period that there is clearly a difference of opinion between the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier with respect to this production quota system. In my last question the Minister of Fisheries, again, said: If they want free enterprise, they can have it. We will take this off the table.

I ask the Premier, again, one more time: Why is it, Mr. Premier, that you will not agree with your Fisheries Minister who clearly wants to take this off the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we can say it as a government. We adopted a plan here. It is a plan that has been well thought out. It is a plan that is based on discussion. It is a plan that is based on the Dunne Report and the consultations that Mr. Dunne had. It is based on discussions that all our members, all our Caucus members have had throughout their districts with people in their districts and we have reached a rational decision. I cannot understand why hon. members opposite would have a problem with that kind of a decision. As for myself and the minister, we are completely in sync on this. If the minister makes an expression of possible frustration and throwing up his hands, he is basically saying that people want that. Is that what they really want? Because that is not what is in their best interest. What we are trying to do is what is in the long-term best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You see, this is the people's resource. The fish in this Province are the people's resource. The crab are the people's resource. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows as a former unelected Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Oh, I am sorry, excuse me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is enlightening to know that of course the Premier knows what is best for everybody, nobody else happens to know. That is what he just said.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also indicated that the members have checked with their districts. Well, I was, and with other people, visiting in Bonavista North on the weekend where we were told quite clearly that the Member for Bonavista North, who sits in his caucus, sides squarely and clearly, at least in his own district when he is there, with the fish harvesters and that he has told them in the communities that he is on the side of the fish harvesters.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again a very simple question: what does the issue of production quotas for crab have to do with the community of Harbour Breton?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the issue of production quotas or raw material shares or what have you, has nothing to do with the community of Harbour Breton. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, when people demand that government let the market and free enterprise determine what happens in the fishing industry than it has a whole lot to do with Harbour Breton and Fogo and New Harbour and Englee and La Scie and all of the rest of the communities that depend on the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, because if you are going to have free enterprise and if you are going to have the market determine what happens than you have to let the market determine what happens.

Now, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and successive governments have determined that it is not in the best interest of the people of the Province to let the market and free enterprise determine what happens. They have determined over time, over thirty years now, that they want governments to manage in some way, shape or form the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have laid out in a raw material sharing system that we rolled out on March 2 is our attempt at taking control of the jurisdiction that is constitutionally ours in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries, as well. I say to the minister, you let free enterprise work in Harbour Breton and the town is closed today.

Mr. Speaker, last week when asked whether or not the plants -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: May I have some order here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognize the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, you did nothing for Harbour Breton and you will do nothing for anyone. That is what I say to the minister.

Last week, when asked whether or not the plants in Englee and New Ferolle would open this year, the minister responded that he felt confident the plant in New Ferolle would open, but he did not mention Englee. The minister is the member for that district and I know that he has had discussions with the operator of the plant in Englee. Can you confirm that that plant will be open for crab production this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that the crowd in Englee are going to process crab this year on the cement foundation that was poured when he was the minister back in 2002. That is what they are going to process crab on. He knows full well that they cannot build a new plant in that period of time. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that with a raw material sharing system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that harvesting and processing enterprises will find the stability they need to be make the appropriate investments in their communities. That is what we hope, Mr. Speaker.

To speak to the Harbour Breton situation once again, we did quite a lot so far to help out the people of Harbour Breton and we are going to do more. I will let the Member for Twillingate & Fogo know he is absolutely right, when you let the free enterprise and when you let the market determine what happens, the situation in Harbour Breton (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: The minister just said that they cannot expect the plant to be built in four years. The minister just said that the plant in Englee would not be open this year. Now, it is our understanding that the owner of the plant in Englee is also involved with the plant in New Ferolle. Will the minister confirm now that the crab production quota slated for Englee will be transferred this year to New Ferolle?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, just like his colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, is certainly not married to the truth, I can tell you that. That is half the trouble with the situation in this Province. That is half the trouble with the fishery, that people like the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo have no - no! - concept of what is going on in the industry; either that, Mr. Speaker, or they completely disregard the facts.

Mr. Speaker, all they are concerned about is trying to make political hay out of a very difficult situation that is confronting the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to play that game. We are trying to stabilize this industry for the communities and the people in the industry for the long term. We are not interested in the political rhetoric of the member -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about being married to the truth. Ask the people in this Province today who they believe, I say to the minister. He won't be on the top of the list, I will guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that the plant in Woody Point has been given a production quota that is higher than what it actually processed in the last three years. On the other hand, we heard this morning that a processor in St. Mary's is only getting about half of what he processed last year. I also understand that the minister has been cutting side deals with the owners of plants to stop them from complaining about this production quota scheme.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How do you expect people to support this scheme when you continue to change the rules for your own political gain?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Gentlemen, ladies, colleagues, thank you very much.

We have had a little misunderstanding here relative to our clock. I do believe that we have to go immediately to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but I will let the minister have about thirty seconds for an answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the people of this Province believe, but I can guarantee you one thing: when it comes to a debate between me and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I know who the people of the Province believe is trying to fix the fishing industry in this Province, and it is not the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I could ask members for their agreement, because we do not have sufficient time left to give the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi his four minutes, if I could, by agreement, let that happen.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last weekend, the Chair of the associated seafood producers broke his silence on the matter and came out, possibly at the urging of the minister, in support of the government's position on resource management. He said: They say that, in the opinion of the association, the vast majority of harvesters still want to fish and aren't opposed to raw material shares.

Why, in the face of an 85 per cent vote to tie up their boats in protest, does this minister insist on these dictatorial policies in support of the crab processors and opposed to the fish harvesters? Why is he doing that, despite the fact that there has been an 85 per cent vote against this by the fish harvesters? Why is he acting in favour of the companies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that the fishing industry, the crab industry in particular, has just about 15,000 participants in it. The last time I checked, roughly 2,000 to 2,100 of the people involved in that industry came out to vote against the proposal. That is what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: We, as a government, have a responsibility to communities and we have a responsibility to plant workers. We have a responsibility to harvesters, we have a responsibility to everybody who is involved with the fishing industry, and all of the people of the Province. The plan that we rolled out tries, and attempts, and will deal with the legitimate concerns of all those people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Because of a malfunction in our clock, the Chair will permit one final question by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the minister has no respect for the views of the fisheries union. In earlier times fishers had no choice, by reasons of geography, but to sell to the local fish merchant. Now, with increased boat technology and more mobility, they do have the power to sell to whomever they want and get a better deal. Why is he turning back the clock, and turning back to the fish processors the same powers that the fish merchant had of old? Why is he doing that against the interests of the fish harvesters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, like I said last week, I cannot believe the Leader of the NDP is advocating for a free enterprise free market system in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, if he was standing up here today and asking why we are not prepared to deal with the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to fix the problems that are in that, to have a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism, to have a mandatory mediation arbitration process so that we could avoid the problem that we had last year, then I would say it is a fair question, because that is exactly what we are prepared to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice of the following private member's motion to be debated tomorrow:

WHEREAS many municipalities in this Province are currently experiencing severe financial difficulties; and

WHEREAS this Province has already experienced the out-migration of 2,700 young people from rural communities in this past eighteen months; and

WHEREAS the unemployment rate in many communities is at an unacceptable level; and

WHEREAS government policy has compromised the delivery of government services in rural communities, having a detrimental effect on the rural economy; and

WHEREAS, despite the promises made during the last election, the current government has not taken the action necessary to deal with the immediate crisis which exists in rural parts of this Province, and

WHEREAS the government has created a crisis in fishing communities around the Province through the imposition of ill-conceived policies; and

WHEREAS there is no evidence that this government has any plan to deal with the crisis facing rural communities in this Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognizes the seriousness of the situation facing rural areas of this Province and calls on the government to finally take action against the crisis facing the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I guess I can do this at any point but I will do it under notices.

I want to give notice that, on tomorrow, under Standing Order 11, the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, and also not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday. I am just giving notice now.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Petitions.

Petitions

 

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

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

I stand today, Mr. Speaker, to present another petition on behalf of the harvesters and plant workers of this Province with regard to the development of a raw material sharing system.

Mr. Speaker, today, again, I heard the Premier state very clearly that the thirty-four members on the other side of the House met with their constituents, brought their concerns with regard to this situation back to them, and everything seems to be fine there; but, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this weekend to speak with constituents in Trinity-Bay de Verde, in that district, a great opportunity in Carbonear-Harbour Grace, during a function, in my own district and in the District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne. Mr. Speaker, the message is loud and clear, and it is not only from harvesters, not only from plant workers, not only from some processors, but it is from the general public. I am referencing the business people who have major concerns about this. They have major concerns, and the general populace out there are saying: When you go back, bring back a message to the Premier. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, the time has gone too far now to bring back a message to the Premier, because he has stated very clearly, that he is not going to change. He stated last week he was standing firm. He turned around, Mr. Speaker, and said the fishermen are trying to take over the government of this Province. Now, what a statement for a Premier to make! Surely goodness, he knows that not only the fishers of this Province, but every citizen, they are the government. They are the people who elect us and bring us here, Mr. Speaker, every three or four years. Those people have major concerns.

I honestly believe that when the regional minister supposedly came back from Ottawa with the Atlantic Accord and said, here is a deal, take it or leave it, Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House and every person in this Province stood behind the Premier on that particular issue. Here we have the same man now, the Premier of this Province, saying to the fish harvesters and those in the industry: Here is the proposal, you take it or leave it. Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable and I think it has gone beyond asking the Premier or the minister to sit down. I think the individual members on the other side are getting the message loud and clear in their districts. We hear the rumblings. I challenge them to stand.

The Premier is saying that all they are getting from the members opposite is good news stories coming back about this proposal. Mr. Speaker, that is not correct, and I challenge each member over there. What we are seeing is a Premier who is trying to govern with an iron fist and I don't think that is appropriate in this democratic society that we live in. Those people have rights, they want to protect them, and they are prepared, Mr. Speaker, through their union to sit down and negotiate a deal. If it is a pilot project, put it on hold. Everyone's lives are in turmoil over the next two or three weeks unless this industry is open.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition today from a group of fish harvesters and plant workers from various parts of the Province, who are calling upon the government to remove this ill-conceived production quota scheme from the table and do as the Dunne report suggested, and that is only implement production quotas if and when fish harvesters and the FFAW in this Province agree that they should be implemented.

I heard, like my colleague from Port de Grave today, that the Premier got up and said he is following the recommendations of the Dunne report, and that his MHAs have been out around their districts and that they are getting support for production quotas. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, I don't think the MHAs are going home to their districts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where the fishery is the biggest part of their income, and coming back with the message that the people in these rural communities are in support of what the Premier is trying to ram down the throats of fishermen.

I have a petition here today from people in Admiral's Beach, in St. Mary's, O'Donnells, King's Point, Little Bay Islands, and I have another half a dozen there that I will be presenting to the House in the next few days.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: what the MHAs are telling the Premier when he gets them in the caucus room and tells them that they are not allowed to speak is not what the MHAs are telling their constituents; because some of the MHAs who are sitting over there today with their heads down are out in various parts of their district telling fishermen and telling plant workers that they are diametrically opposed to what the Premier is trying to do here, and that they are in there telling the Premier that is the case. So, what the Premier is saying today basically is what these individuals, what these MHAs, like the one from St. Mary's Bay, is not coming back to the House of Assembly or coming back to the Premier and telling him the truth, because what he is saying outside the House, or outside the caucus room, is not what he is telling the people in his constituency. That goes for a lot of them on the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to get up today and say he is living with the recommendation of the Dunne report, nothing could be further from the truth. He is trying to hoodwink the population of this Province to believe that Eric Dunne actually made that recommendation - and his minister, the puppet, has been up a number of times, almost to the point -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: All right, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks the member to withdraw the word puppet.

MR. REID: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that Eric Dunne never did make the recommendation that this production quota system should come in place. What Eric Dunne said is that the only way that production quotas should come to be is, if and when it were agreed to by the harvesters and the plant workers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, I know that he will not let the crowd opposite speak in the House of Assembly, and I doubt very much if he allows them to speak in caucus, because if he is saying today that all thirty-three members over there are in favour of production quotas, then I suggest what the people, those thirty-three members, are saying to the Premier is not what he is saying to his constituents, but at least the Premier is on record today as saying that is what he is going to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people who live in eight communities in my district; actually, people from Point au Gaul right around to Grand Beach who use the health care facilities in Grand Bank and Fortune, in that area.

The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is essentially to call on the government to live up to the promise that the Premier gave during the last election; in fact, on three occasions when he said that he would indeed continue with the replacement facility in Grand Bank, a facility that is utilized by any number of people in the District of Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here in this petition is a plea, actually. It is a plea to the government, a plea to the Premier in particular. Obviously he must have been aware, I assume he was aware, of the deplorable conditions that exist in the health care facilities in Grand Bank. I know that the previous, previous Minister of Health, the Member for Conception Bay South, actually toured there and knows, saw first-hand, how bad the situation is in the health care clinic there. What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is not a new facility but a replacement facility. No additional services, just a replacement of existing services.

When you look at the situation that is down there now, where we have $3.5 million that is gone into putting in place the necessary infrastructure that needs to go in the ground, in addition to the steel, to complete, to get a start on the new health care facility down there - to have that standing there, and people looking at that day in and day out, wondering if the Premier will some day live up to his promise. We are asking him to do that, Mr. Speaker, because we have a health care facility down there that is not even safe to go in, when you are going into that clinic, to try and get some good health care.

We have excellent professionals. We have good doctors, good nursing staff, good technicians, and, lo and behold, they have to try and provide a service in a structure that really should be torn down. In suggesting that it be torn down, that cannot happen until we have a facility in place to replace it.

If you look at the weather conditions, if you look at the road conditions in that area, we all know - anybody at all would know and understand - that you cannot send people from that area over to Burin and know that if they need to be stabilized before leaving, they really do need to be able to access the holding beds in the clinic.

When you look at the seniors' home there, something that was built to care for people who required acute care Level I and Level II, today they are not even cared for, in acute care Level I and Level II. The facility, in fact, cares for people who require acute care Level III and Level IV.

It is not right for the residents, the seniors, who have to live in that facility and who need and deserve the good service that is provided by the health care professionals, but is being provided in a less than adequate facility, Mr. Speaker.

The petitioners here are calling on the Premier in particular, because it was the Premier who made the commitment. In particular, they are calling on the Premier to live up to his commitment. Certainly, he made the commitment. He thought, when others made promises and did not keep them, that they were not being honourable. Well, they are saying the same thing to the Premier. How can you possibly say that if someone else does not keep a promise then they are less than being honourable?

They know that the Premier has seen the facilities. They know that he has seen first-hand what needs to happen. He understands. He committed to doing that, and now they are calling on him to live up to that commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by roughly 250 people on the Burin Peninsula, calling on the government to put a CT scanner and a dialysis unit in the Burin hospital.

It is ridiculous, when we hear of the difficulty the people on the Burin Peninsula have to go through and there does not seem to be anybody on the government side of the House speaking up for the people on the Burin Peninsula.

I was out in the district on the weekend and everybody was saying that the Member for Stephenville can get up and announce all kinds of services for Stephenville. They are wondering where the Member for Burin-Placentia West is, because they see him on television clapping for, and tapping on his desk for, the announcements about Stephenville. They do not understand. They do not know why he cannot get up and make the same announcements about the CT scanner and the dialysis unit for Burin. If the Member for Stephenville can get up in the House of Assembly and make these announcements, people are asking me: Where is the Member for Burin-Placentia West on this? How come he cannot get up and make the announcement about the CT scanner and the dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula?

I guess the Member for Burin-Placentia West does not want those particular facilities on the Burin Peninsula. As a matter of fact, he is on record as saying there is no reason why they cannot go to Clarenville. We hear that Clarenville is supposed to be the hub of the Burin Peninsula. I do not know when Clarenville was the hub of the Burin Peninsula. I call on the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West to stand up.

I have been a member for part of the Burin Peninsula since 1996. I have travelled many, many times to Marystown and the other parts of the Burin Peninsula to support activities on the Burin Peninsula. I have gone up to support the soccer team that was going to St. Lawrence, and all the other things that were happening on the Burin Peninsula. It is time now that - we have one representative from the Burin Peninsula on the government side. Stand up and make sure you make the announcement within the next couple of days that the CT scanner and the dialysis unit is going on the Burin Peninsula; because, if the Member for Stephenville can do it, they are saying: How come our member cannot get up and make the same announcement?

I am calling on the member to stand up for his constituents and all of the people on the Burin Peninsula to make those announcements, hopefully tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition from residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to the hon. House of Assembly, and regards the Dunne report and the recommendation with respect to raw material sharing only being done when processors can satisfy the minister that there will or are no substantive or reasonable objection to plant workers and harvesters.

Well, it is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker - based on a letter to the editor in The Telegram on the weekend - that the Association of Seafood Producers are fully in support of the raw material sharing. What the Dunne report actually says, Mr. Speaker, when the seafood processors come forward with a proposal, is that the minister should ensure that there are no substantial and reasonable objections from fish harvesters before it went into the plan. What we have now is a government insisting on implementing a plan without the consent, and over the objection, of the fish harvesters. Are they substantial? Are they reasonable? These are not necessarily matters of opinion. They are certainly substantial.

We have seen the protest that has been carried out in this Province for the last two weeks. The fact that 85 per cent of the fish harvesters voted in favour of tying up their boats in the prospect of doing this, the government insisting on this deal. When I spoke to fish harvesters last night, Mr. Speaker, they see themselves staring in the face of control by the fish processors. Now, you cannot stand blindly against what you see with your own two eyes. The solidarity amongst fish harvesters is obvious, and, yet, we have the owners, the merchants, the producers saying: In our opinion, the vast majority of harvesters still want to fish and are not fundamentally opposed to the raw material share system. That is the same attitude that this government has. They are not prepared to accept what they see with their own eyes, what they have been told time and time again by the people who represent the fish harvesters.

That was not a vote, by the way, as to whether you are opposed or whether you are against raw material shares. This was whether you are prepared to tie up your boats, and 85 per cent said they would tie up their boats. Well, I have been told at meetings over the weekend, not only was there 85 per cent prepared to tie up their boats, there was 100 per cent opposed to the raw material share plan of this government. So, what they have done, Mr. Speaker, is they have given the fish harvesters reason to be totally, totally angry and upset with this government and determined that they are not going to allow the government to shift the balance of power in the fishing industry to let the crab producers have their way.

The petitioners here, Mr. Speaker, say that they have clearly not been consulted nor included in the process, and they humbly pray and call upon the House to urge government to only impose production quotas if it is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors as recommended in the Dunne report. Mr. Speaker, it takes two to tango.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition on behalf of residents from my district. It is with regard to the Dunne report and the raw material sharing system that the government is jamming down people's throats of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like whenever this government comes up with a plan it is full speed ahead. Never mind what anyone is saying. It is strange that everybody in the Province - if you listen to the open line programs, you look at the galleries, the people outside. I know for four days in my district people were telling me: For heavens sakes, ask the government to put this pilot project they are talking about on hold for a little while and let the economy get on. I have had car dealerships out there concerned about lack of sales. It seems like, with this government, it is my way or the highway. It is almost like a mother looking at a parade: Look, everybody is out of step except my Johnny. The government is clearly out of step here. The government is Johnny out of step. There is nobody recommending this.

I go to the Dunne report and the recommendation of the Dunne report, one of the suggestions is development, in consultation with industry, clearly says: In consultation with industry if a pilot project for sharing of raw material by the processing sector for which a proposal would have to come from a group of processors representing at least three-quarters of the active processing licence holders. Now, there has been no consultation with industry whatsoever. None whatsoever, unless we, of course, assume that the industry are to processors. That is the only assumption that we can make from what this report says and what is actually happening.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer everyday that the processors are not all onside with this. I heard on Open Line last night of a processor whose quota was cut from 1 million pounds down to 500,000 pounds. Now that is something for a small community in rural Newfoundland, to have half their product processed this year. So if there were 100 people processed that crab last summer where are the other fifty people this summer going to get work in rural Newfoundland?

MR. GRIMES: Fort McMurray.

MR. SWEENEY: I say yes, Newfoundland's biggest capital right now is Fort McMurray, at the rate we are going with 2,600 people already gone from the Province. Mr. Speaker, there is just no justification for what is going on.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, step outside the overpass and go out around rural Newfoundland and see what is happening out there. That is what I say to you. Do not get up and try to rattle me on my three minutes here today when I am speaking here on behalf of my people. Have the courage to get up and stand, don't just toe the line of your leader. Don't just toe the line.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Has leave been granted to make some concluding comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I will be back with another petition and I humbly ask the government members opposite to stand up, represent their constituents and tell the Premier this step is the wrong step.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader, the Chair wishes to make a statement to the House.

The Speaker expresses grave concern for the institution of Parliament and for the preservation of the rule of law. For the past nine sitting days our Assembly has been interrupted by disturbances in the public galleries and requests by the Speaker for order and decorum have been largely ignored. The Speaker has been obliged to recess the House repeatedly, and on most days the public galleries remained closed for the balance of that sitting day. The House of Assembly cannot continue to be interrupted by visitors in the public galleries. Parliament must be able to function in our democratic system and the Speaker is entrusted by tradition, by practice and by our Standing Orders, to ensure the rule of law is upheld.

Over the past days the Speaker has been very patient with those who are visitors in the galleries. The privilege of attending in the public galleries must be seen as a lesser democratic value than the right of duly elected members to conduct the business of the House of Assembly. The differences between those who are visitors in the galleries and government must not be seen as differences between the visitors and the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly and the government are two distinct and different entities. The Speaker must assure that Parliament functions, and that it functions properly.

Regrettably, the Speaker wishes to advise the House that the public galleries will remain closed until the Speaker can be assured by the Sergeant-at-Arms that those who attend in the public galleries can be expected to respect the House traditions regarding order and decorum. This action is unfortunate, however, in the Speaker's opinion, it has become necessary.

The Speaker wishes to note that the press gallery and the Speaker's gallery will remain open. Our parliamentary proceedings will continue to be broadcast directly and in their entirety.

The Speaker regrets any inconvenience this may cause, especially to student groups who have planned visits to the House. I hope this matter can be resolved very quickly.

Again, I emphasize, visitors are welcome in our Assembly but they cannot interfere with our proceedings.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion1, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, commonly referred to as the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: I know you are going to rule that it is not a point of order, so again I may have to rise on a point of privilege afterwards, but if you would just give me a minute because this is very serious.

I understand exactly the statement you just made as the Speaker, and I understand it is your prerogative to do so, but, Mr. Speaker, I would ask some questions. In the past, you have indicated that it is improper and it is not in order to ask questions of the Speaker, but when the Speaker has, of his own volition, with no prodding from anybody, made a statement, I don't know how we are supposed to get the answers without asking a question of the Speaker.

The issue that you raised was that you would close the public galleries until you can have some assurance that those who are attending are going to attend in order and be in order as they attend.

My question, under a point of order, is: How do you intend to determine that? Are people doing to be asked outside, as they request entry each day at 1:30 p.m., or 2:00 p.m. on tomorrow because tomorrow we start at 2:00 p.m. - if they sign an undertaking at the front desk, that they will come in and stay in order, are they going to be allowed in? If someone comes and identifies themself, tomorrow or the next day, as having no connection to the crab fishery or anything else, if they are a group of students - because I know there are some from my district scheduled to be here - are they going to be allowed in? If a member of my family, who is visiting in town, wants to visit the gallery, can they only be here if I go through the Speaker's Office and ask that they sit in the Speaker's Gallery? These are serious questions, Mr. Speaker.

If that ruling and that statement that you just made is not further clarified our caucus will have to have a meeting and give real consideration as to whether or not we can support the ruling and whether or not we will agree to come to a legislature that is closed beforehand, presuming and assuming disorder and misconduct before it ever occurs.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that on one day only has the session of our Parliament been suspended for the remainder of the day. Every other day of the nine that you have talked about, including today - we are here with about two hours left in our parliamentary agenda in which we can continue to conduct business. We have conducted business every single day. I do not understand, as one hon. member in this House, what the urgency is, what has driven you to this, what advice you have received; and again, just like the problem we had a week or so ago, no consultation in advance with ourselves as a party entity in this House, no consultation, I would assume, with the government and the government caucus - I can only assume that, if we are all to be treated equally - and no consultation, that I am aware of, with the NDP caucus in this Legislature.

I know that the normal rules of order are that you do not question the Speaker, but how can we get answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker, on a statement that you just, of your own volition, made to the House? I would ask that you address those, if you can, under our rules of order.

MR. SPEAKER: As the member is well aware, statements cannot be addressed to the Speaker and the Speaker cannot reply. However, the Speaker has to take into consideration - as I said on Thursday and on other days, the Speaker is responsible for order and decorum in this Legislature. In that connection, the Speaker has to make very difficult decisions. For a great number of days we have had continuous interruptions. The Speaker has to make sure that the House is able to function and we cannot function with the interruptions we have been having consistently for the past number of days.

The Speaker's statement stands and it will be the policy and is the policy of this Speaker. Until the Sergeant-at-Arms can advise this Speaker that there is a reasonable expectation that visitors will obey the rules of order and decorum, visitors' galleries will close. However, the Speaker's gallery will remain open and the press gallery will remain open.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this relates directly to Standing Order 23, and I suspect, by Your Honour's ruling, you have cancelled Standing Order 23 from our Standing Orders. Standing Order 23 says, "Any stranger..." and I can certainly be educated on this. My understanding is that strangers in the House would refer to persons in the galleries, who get into the galleries once Your Honour calls order at the beginning of the day's session and says: Admit strangers. Section 23, which I understand is the predominant order which takes precedence in our House, states, "Any stranger admitted into any part of the House or gallery, who misconducts himself or herself, or who does not withdraw when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting, shall be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms and no person so taken into custody shall be discharged without a special order of the House."

I would think that is the predominant rule, the precedent, the Standing Order of this House, that first of all, it says here, they had to get in here; there has to be a stranger in here. Then and only then, if that person misconducts himself or herself, there is an action taken. I submit that we are in breach of our own orders by having such a ruling that contravenes this rule 23. We are not even allowing any strangers into the House to see if we do or do not apply rule 23. I am suggesting that rule 23 is the precedence we have here. It is the law of this Legislature, that no only Your Honour lives by but every preceding Speaker in this institution has lived by, and I would assume everybody to comes after will live by, unless we, as a House, decide we do not want that Standing Order anymore based upon a rules committee.

Right now, we have had the rules of this House, I would submit, usurped by that ruling when we do not even have the strangers into the gallery to decide if he or she did or did not misconduct himself or herself. Once that is done, the person must be asked to withdraw. I think it is totally improper and undemocratic to assume and presume that people who enter here, at your invitation at the beginning of the day's sessions when you say, admit strangers, are presumed to cause disruption. That goes contrary to and flies in the face of all logic that our very system is founded upon.

We have the remedy right in here. It says: "... when strangers are directed to withdraw..." - which the Chair would do if you found that they did misconduct himself or herself - they "...shall be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms..." In the last nine days, we have not had one incident in this House where that Standing Order 23 has been implemented, and yet we have taken, I would submit, the draconian measure of usurping our own Standing Orders and barring the Chambers before we even have any strangers here.

I am just lost on the logic, Your Honour, of how we, without any prompting from anyone, without using the rules we already have, and the Sergeant-at-Arms we already have, jump ten steps and ten paces and say we are going to lock the doors.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker will grant a brief interruption or a brief comment by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order and response to your statement, I find the statement and the decision of Your Honour to be quite extraordinary. I have to wonder - we have not really had time to digest our statement which was made. I am not aware of any precedent of that nature.

Reviewing Marleau and Montpetit, in dealing with disorder in the galleries, it does talk about disorder in the galleries and the role of the Sergeant-at-Arms. "From time to time there have been instances of misconduct in the galleries and the Sergeant-at-Arms and security staff have acted to remove demonstrators or strangers behaving in a disruptive way." It goes on to say on page 241. "In cases of extreme disorder, the Speaker has directed that the galleries be cleared. In addition, should the House adopt the motion " That strangers be ordered to withdraw," it would be the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms and security staff to clear the galleries of strangers." There is no reference to declaring that the galleries shall be closed forthwith or upon some condition or until something happens in the future, so that tomorrow when we conduct business the galleries will not be open, we will not have the Speaker say admit strangers.

This seems to be very extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, and - I am not aware of any previous precedent, certainly not in this House since I have been here, since 1990 - I do not know under what authority the Speaker is able to make such a ruling, frankly. I would appreciate some opportunity to research the question and find out what the appropriate response would be.

I agree with the Opposition House Leader that, to presume that strangers - there are many different people in this House. Some of them were police officers this afternoon. Others are officials of various parties, and work in various offices, and members of the public who are present in this House. It seems to me that, in the absence of any activity that the Speaker can respond to, I am not aware of what authority, other than a motion of this House, to actually have the galleries cleared of strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker, again, cannot engage in debate; however, the Speaker certainly wishes to advise members, and he hopes that there can be a dialogue that can occur which will permit the Sergeant-at-Arms to be able to report to the Speaker that this extraordinary step that the Speaker feels obliged to take can be lifted very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) orders from Danny.

MR. SPEAKER: However -

MR. BARRETT: Orders from Danny it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for the District of Bellevue to withdraw the comment that he just made casting reflections on the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will take that as a withdrawal. It was stated as an apology, and that is satisfactory to the Speaker.

The Speaker hopes that we can come back very quickly, even before the end of this day, and be able to say that we can have arrangements made; however, we cannot continue. Parliament must function. It falls upon me to make an extraordinary decision. Decisions regarding limitations of access have been made in other Legislatures, and the decision stands until I can be advised otherwise.

The Orders of the Day have been called.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I find your particular statement to the House, and the action taken, so startling and so unwarranted in the circumstances that we have actually been involved in here for the last nine sitting days, two questions arise. One is, I do not see the severity of the interruption that would cause this kind of an action to be taken by yourself, as the Speaker, on behalf of ourselves as members. Secondly, as was raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would need some time to again research under what authority the Speaker - unless there is some kind of a crisis in the land, or some kind of anarchy, disorder or lawlessness, like the kinds of things that happened in other Legislatures where guns were fired at members, and those kinds of things, that made perfect sense to close a Legislature, so I know it has been done in the past. I think that is a far cry from what we have experienced here.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, again, I do not know how, in the statement that you have made, you can possibly put the Sergeant-at-Arms in a position that she, on your behalf, is supposed to find out - in advance of anyone coming to the House at 2:00 tomorrow afternoon - whether or not they are going to sign some kind of public bond or public undertaking to come into the gallery and not create any kind of a disturbance. I do not know how that can function. The standard that you have put there, that you say you might be able to resolve by the end of the day, I cannot imagine a circumstance under which that could possibly ever be met.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, at this point I am always reluctant to challenge a Chair, but that is something else on which I would do a bit of research and try to find a way to do it properly. I am not in a position to do it right now, but I would give notice that I intend to challenge the Chair and the authority of the Chair with respect to this issue and have it put to a vote of this Legislature so that all of us, as members, can stand on whether or not we think this is an appropriate action that you are unilaterally now suggesting that you are taking on our behalf.

In the interim, I am so personally offended by it in terms of thinking it is improper, unwarranted - there is an old expression that you can sometimes swat a fly with a sledgehammer. I think that is where we are, Mr. Speaker, very much so. It has been described before, by other interveners, that you have gone ten or twelve steps down the road when the first three or four baby steps have not even been taken. I think this is extreme.

I can tell you, as one member in the House, I will go and research how we can formally and appropriately challenge the Chair; but if this stands, I can tell you, as one member, I will not be here participating in this Legislature under that ruling by yourself as the Chair. It will not happen, and I certainly will not be participating any further today. Even though I was to be a speaker, I will reserve my right to speak for some point in the future when we are operating under more of a democratic, open House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

I will listen to hear what your comments are, and then I will withdraw from the Legislature because I believe this is extreme and it is well beyond what should be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member will know that, once a ruling is made on a point of order, you cannot rise on a point of privilege to argue the same matter.

The Chair has listened to the presentations and the Chair now calls Orders of the Day.

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

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

Motion 1, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, commonly referred to as the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 has been called.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of the budget for my department this year, we have put forward a number of initiatives, very positive initiatives. One of those is new funding for provincial parks. As all members of the House would agree, in recent years the state of our provincial parks has declined considerably. There has been a need for upgrades at our provincial parks and we are addressing that by putting $250,000 into our provincial parks, which will be the first of a number of increases put forward by this government to improve the provincial park system.

There are only three parks remaining in the Province without comfort stations. There are eight without dumping stations. One of the provincial parks this year, Mr. Speaker, will get both. Last year, we improved and replaced a number of picnic tables and fireplace installations. We have also begun to put new camping lots at the Butterpot Provincial Park in an effort to increase the visitorship at that park, which is generally full to its maximum.

Mr. Speaker, the previous Administration made a commitment in 1997, when they privatized more than half of the remaining provincial parks, which was a second effort by the previous Administration to privatize provincial parks in this Province, which this party very strongly opposed. There are only thirteen camping parks remaining in the Province. When the previous Administration decided to privatize provincial parks in 1997, they made a commitment to put $1 million a year into the upgrading of the thirteen remaining provincial parks or camping parks. That did not happen. In fact, at no time since 1997 has the previous Administration put forward a strong effort to improve the provincial parks and the infrastructure at those parks. We are addressing that in this year's Budget. We have taken steps. We recognize the value of the thirteen remaining parks. We recognize the value, not only for our local visitors, but for tourists. In an effort to address that, the money is put forward. Next year, we will look at the next priority in putting in place a comfort station, perhaps a dumping station in another park. We will continue that until all of our provincial parks, all of the camping parks are at a national standard, a standard that the people of this Province and this government can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to improving the parks this year, I will say that last year, despite the fact that tourism in the Province was down slightly, tourism in Atlantic Canada was down, the ‘visitorship' to provincial parks in the other Atlantic provinces was down significantly, we have held our own in the Province. So, there is a demand in this Province for people to visit our parks, most especially the tourists, and we recognize that.

In addition to money for provincial parks, the $250,000 that we put forward to address the provincial parks issue in this year's Budget, we have also put $300,000 forward to address climate change. The $300,000 that we are putting forward to address climate change is an indication of this government's desire to address climate change in this Province. We can see the severe changes in weather conditions, weather patterns throughout the Province. We need to do some research to find out how that is going to affect us, not only today, how it is affecting our resources such as the forestry, our fishery and other resources, but how it is going to affect us ten years from now, fifteen from now. We need to determine so that we can plan ahead to best utilize the resources that we have in this Province. The only way to do that is to put the money into that file, which the previous Administration again has not put any money into the climate change file. We have taken action on that file.

We are also signing, this week, a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government on the climate change initiatives, an agreement between this Province and the federal government on how we can jointly address and focus on climate change initiatives. With the recent federal Budget putting aside funding in the range of about $250 million a year on a national basis, that is funding that we believe we can go after. We believe there is money that we can attract to this Province for initiatives such as green energy, hydro development projects, such as the Lower Churchill, wind energy projects and other green energy projects, such as geothermal.

We are looking at those projects. We are going to put a very strong focus in on attracting some of that federal funding to this Province to advance our Climate Change Action Plan in the Province. On that, we have already done a number of initiatives in the Province. We have looked at advancing the energy efficiency in a number of hospitals, schools and government buildings as a partnership between our department and the Department of Transportation and Works. There have been a number of upgrades at government buildings, schools and so on throughout the recent years. We are also looking at ways to improve energy efficiency within government buildings and we have taken on measures such as investigating wind energy projects and geothermal energy projects. We have entered into agreements with the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers on a regional Climate Change Action Plan. In addition to that, we are going to be announcing our provincial Climate Change Action Plan and how we intend to focus on climate change within the coming weeks.

There are a number of considerations with climate change, Mr. Speaker, in how we address climate change in this Province. We have just recently appointed the former Deputy Minister of Environment and Conservation, Deputy Minister Paul Dean, to a special project climate change. His focus, and part of the focus of this government and my department, will be on looking at ways that this government can improve its record and improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a provincial basis. We have recently introduced legislation and amendments to regulations on air emissions in the Province which, while it will focus mainly on particulate matter and CO2 emissions, sulphur emissions, we are also looking at emission of greenhouse gases in the Province and how we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases.

Recently, we have made changes to other regulations within the Province. We are going to be bringing in new regulations on pesticides, for example, on halocarbons within the Province and how we can address those issues as well to better protect the environment in this Province. This government is committed to protecting the environment and to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and dealing with the issue of climate change in the Province.

We have also put new money aside in this year's Budget, as well, for the Institute for Biodiversity and environmental science in Corner Brook. As well, we put money into the concept of an Environmental Centre of Excellence in Corner Brook and we will be opening a new wildlife lab in Corner Brook. We are focusing on Corner Brook as a centre of excellence for environmental studies. We will be partnering with the educational institutions in Corner Brook on how we can work together and partner to advance that concept. Part of the Institute for Biodiversity and environmental science will be integrated into the educational institutions in Corner Brook in addition to the Environmental Centre of Excellence. The new lab will be incorporated into the Grenfell College in Corner Brook. It will be accessible to the students at the Grenfell College. We are committed, Mr. Speaker, in making Corner Brook an environmental centre of excellence as well. We have taken steps in recent months to make that a reality and we are working towards that goal.

As well, as part of the Budget this year, Mr. Speaker, we have put money towards caribou surveys in Labrador. That came out of the Trans Labrador Highway environmental impact statement and environmental assessment. Part of that environmental assessment called for caribou monitoring of the Mealy Mountain herd, which is an endangered caribou herd. We put the money into that this year for collaring, for surveys, for helicopter time and we are committed as well to carrying through on the recommendations of the environmental assessment on the Trans Labrador Highway and in the Trans Labrador Highway itself. Mr. Speaker, we, in addition to that, recognize that there is a concern on the Island with caribou populations. The numbers for the big game hunt will be released later on this month - I am sorry, the month of May.

We are looking at increasing quotas for moose. The moose populations have remained relatively stable in the Province. There has been some decline in some areas but, overall, the moose populations have remained relatively stable. There will be an increase in a couple of areas. Caribou populations on the other hand, Mr. Speaker - and we are not certain yet as to why, but caribou populations in the Province have faced a steep decline in recent years. That is a concern that we have. It is huge concern, not only for government but for the outfitting industry, in attracting non-resident hunters, which is a big boost for the local economy, especially in a number of rural areas. We are studying why the caribou populations have declined. Part of the Budget last year, and part of the Budget again this year, we have put funding and a focus on looking at our big game populations.

We have to ascertain as to why caribou populations are on a decline throughout the Island portion of the Province, why there is a greater calf mortality rate, the effects of coyote predation on caribou, the effects, Mr. Speaker, of why there is a low recruitment rate, why there are less caribou being calved. The reasons for the caribou decline, we are unsure at this point, but we have to find out whether decreasing the allocation of caribou this year is the right decision, whether we should increase it in certain areas and focus on older caribou as a way of controlling the population and trying to recruit more caribou. Until we have the science and have very firm information as to why the caribou populations have declined, we are not able to make those decisions in a scientific way. We are focusing on that in this year's Budget as well, Mr. Speaker.

Overall, this year's Budget has been a very positive Budget for the people of this Province. Last year we had a difficult Budget by all agreement throughout the Province. We had to take measures last year to address the fiscal realities in the Province. There are a number of changes from last year to this year including better management by this Administration of the Province's finances, including increased oil revenues which was a huge boost to the Province, and the hope that we will get the agreement with the federal government on the Atlantic Accord which will put huge revenue into this Province as well. All of those things in mind, this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to lighten up, so to speak. We have been able to make some very positive announcements and put forward a very positive Budget that, I think, is recognized by the people throughout the Province as being a positive Budget, that is recognized as well by the financial institutions and so on, as being a very positive Budget. Still, while loosening the purse strings so to speak, we have maintained our ability to control the finances and to do the things that have to be done to protect the financial integrity of this Province for future generations.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this year's Budget, and I will take this opportunity, again, to say that I am very pleased that my department was able to put forward a budget without huge cuts, without any layoffs. I am very pleased to speak to the Budget this year again, Mr. Speaker, and thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today and speak to the Budget. There are several issues I would like to raise, several things that were approved in the Budget.

I would like to start off by saying that this government, in its first year of providing services to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, has, effectively, half the deficit, from almost $1 billion the previous year to were are now forecasting $500 million for the next fiscal year. That has been done, Mr. Speaker, with no new taxes except for increases in cigarettes and tobacco.

There were a number of items approved in the Budget that I would like to speak to today. I will not speak to all of the new initiatives in the Budget, but there are a few I have singled out that are of interest to me and also to my constituents.

The first one I would like to speak to is the additional $1 million for tourism marketing. I complement the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on this initiative. I am sure we have all had visitors from away, and, of course, people who visit Newfoundland absolutely fall in love with our Province and many are eager to return. I know, when I worked in the public service, anytime that we had a convention or we had meetings or a conference here in Newfoundland, the number of people attending would far exceed those who would attend when it was held in other jurisdictions. Again, the $1 million will provide a lot of benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would also like to speak to the additional $160,000 that is going to be provided to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council. I have been familiar with that organization for a number of years. They do good work and to provide them with additional funding to continue on with their initiatives is a good initiative.

Also, there is a $1.3 billion dollar commitment for the Provincial Training Centre. In my District of Topsail there are a lot of young families, young people, who are very sports oriented, and many of my constituents have complemented us on the $1.3 million commitment for the Provincial Training Centre.

I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to move to the Department of Transportation and Works. There is $33 million approved for provincial roads. I think most of us who have driven around this Province realize that additional work needs to be done on our highways especially if we are to attract the tourism group that we would like to attract. Also, there is $40 million for Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, as well as $7 million for refit and maintenance of the ferries.

There is one item budgeted for under the Department of Transportation and Works. It is not a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes the best initiatives are the ones that do not cost an awful lot. This is $500,000 for a provincial vessel replacement strategy for the marine vessels in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

Many people around this Province do not realize that we spend quite a significant amount of money on our marine vessels and the services provided by our ferries. In fact, I think, Mr. Speaker, speaking from memory, it is about $50 million. This money has been spent over the years without any strategy, no long-term plan. Every year we are putting more and more money into our provincial ferry system with really no strategy, and I think it is a very good idea to spend this money to devise a provincial vessel replacement plan.

In the area of the Department of Environment, there are a few initiatives there that I would like to speak to. There is $1 million budgeted to complete the clean-up of the contamination of the former military site at St. Anthony. I think this is something, Mr. Speaker, that we will have to address in future years. There are quite a few contaminated sites around the Province. I think that the most recent estimate to clean-up all the contaminated sites around the Province is somewhere in the vicinity of $30 to $40 million dollars. We are starting to make inroads in that regard.

In the Department of Municipal Affairs, funding has been provided under the Multi-Year Capital Works Program. In the Department of Natural Resources, $4 million in new agricultural initiatives. As someone who enjoys very much working on a farm and in the garden, I compliment the minister on this initiative.

I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to move to the Department of Education. We all know that over the last number of years there has been insufficient money put into our schools to really keep them up to scratch. We have seen many articles in the media in recent weeks regarding the infrastructure of the schools and leaks in the roofs, things of that nature. Twenty-six million dollars has been committed by this government to improve capital infrastructure. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that will not cure all the ills but at least it is a start.

There is also funding there similar to the vessel replacement plan. There is also funding provided in the Budget for long-term planning in the area of capital infrastructure and education. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good idea because what governments tend to do or have tended to do in the past is put significant amounts of money into certain programs hoping that at the end of the day they will achieve some results. The focus now is that we would put in place a long-term plan, some sort of strategy, and decide where we would like to go in the future, how much it is going to cost us. The $250,000 for a long-term planning strategy for capital infrastructure in the Department of Education is an excellent idea.

We all know, too, Mr. Speaker, that deferred maintenance in the schools over the last number of years has not worked. We have to keep our schools up to scratch because, if you do not do your maintenance, they just deteriorate and deteriorate and deteriorate and, in the long term, you effectively spend more money in keeping your buildings up to par.

Mr. Speaker, the same thing with the roads. There has been deferred maintenance on our roads over the last number of years. I think we have all come to the realization that, while it may save money in the short term, really in the long term we pay an even greater price to bring our roads back up to scratch. So, at this point in time, what we are trying to do is bring our infrastructure back up to a certain acceptable standard and also have plans in place so that in the future we will be able to use our plans to determine exactly where we want to go.

One of the other areas in education that I was quite pleased to see is the $1 million that was approved for physical education equipment. We all know that our children are becoming heavier than they were in the past; that there is, you know, less attention, that kids are spending less time in physical education.

I was very interested this morning - I do not know if other people heard the article on CBC Radio, but they were interviewing a principal from a school at Beachy Cove and they had done a survey; I believe it was at Christmas. They wanted to find out how many of the children had actually played outdoors over the Christmas holidays. The number that came back - I cannot remember the exact number, but it was less than 50 per cent - the number was really quite, quite surprising.

Not to reflect back on the olden days, but I know when I was a child in school, and also when my children were in school, much of the Christmas holiday and much of the Easter holiday was spent outdoors, especially at Christmas. You were out sliding, you were building a rink, and things of that nature. Well, it seems now what is happening with the kids is that they are on the computer, watching TV. They have DVD players, things of this nature, and, of course, there is a tendency now for kids not to go outdoors. So, hopefully, this $1 million for physical education equipment will be a help and will encourage children to go outdoors and be more physically fit.

One of the issues - it is not only the fact that the children are getting larger. When a child is larger they have a tendency not to participate in physical activity, but there is a whole host of medical problems that are contributed to by obesity, and these would be things like diabetes, heart disease, things of that nature. Studies have shown that children who are obese later in life stay obese; so, of course, what we are trying to do is change children's lifestyle and try to get them on a healthier lifestyle.

One of the things that has been in the news lately, that I find quite interesting - I am from a family where, especially on my mother's side, people live long. My grandmother was 99 when she passed away, and last week my aunt passed away and she was 101. I guess I have good genes in that many members of my family live long lives.

Unfortunately, what the studies are predicting now is that our children will probably not live as long as us because of their lack of physical activity, their lifestyle, their health, things of that nature.

To continue on with issues in the Department of Education, the last time I spoke in the House I referred to the White Paper on public post-secondary education, and this Budget provides almost $15 million for initiatives relating to the White Paper. As a mother of three children who are in university, I am quite anxious to see the paper and also the initiatives for which the $15 million has been allocated. I would like also to refer to the continuing tuition freeze which will be of help to all students in the Province.

The last thing under the Department of Education that I would like to refer to is the commitment by government to put additional money into the Budget to reduce the age of our school bus fleet.

The next area I would like to move to is the Department of Health. There are a number of initiatives there which are very excellent initiatives. New funding has been provided, and I would like to comment on some of those.

There is an additional $7 million provided in the drug plan for twenty-five new drugs. That drug plan now, the government spends well over $100 million on drugs for two drug plans. One is called the indigent drug plan and the other is the seniors drug plan. I would like to say that, compared to other jurisdictions, our plan is not as rich or not as wealthy as the plans in other jurisdictions which are, of course, wealthier than our Province, but I think that in the last two years this Province has made a good stride in adding new drugs to the formulary, and the drug program is well over $100 million. So, I think, while much still needs to be done, we are making progress.

Another area that I would like to speak to, Mr. Speaker, is the area of public health. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, it seemed that the area of public health received very little funding and, in fact, in recent years seems to have completely disappeared from the radar sight. This government now has decided to put more resources into public health. In fact, there is an additional $6 million being put in this year, and $2.4 million of that is for a wellness strategy. What the wellness strategy will do is emphasize more the front end, like trying to prevent medical problems, trying to keep people healthy. It seems like all of our money is going in at the back end. We spend a lot of money trying to fix people up once they become ill, and not enough money up front and trying to prevent many of these illnesses. So there is $2.4 million put in for that.

Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right, I think that is the biggest infusion of money that has been put into the prevention and promotion aspect of health - I do not know in the history of the Province but certainly in recent years, so that is quite a significant sum of money.

There is also $750,000 put in for disease surveillance, which I agree we should be doing more of, and there is an additional $2.8 million put in for increased immunization of children. Of course, our children are our most important asset, so that is a good initiative.

There is $23 million put directly into health care, and it is targeted at reducing wait times. Much of the money is put into new equipment such as MRIs, CT scanners, ultrasound equipment, but the funding is targeted so the money is going in with a specific objective of reducing wait times. The funding is focused, and that is an excellent initiative.

One of the other areas I would like to speak to is mental health and addictions. I have known, over the last number of years, a number of people who have struggled with mental health issues. I know, as a young girl, many years ago, we always termed that if somebody had mental health issues that they had a problem with their nerves. It was almost something that people did not like to admit to. They did not want to share it with people, that they had mental health issues, so it was sort of hidden away and not talked about. Last year this government approved $1 million for mental health initiatives. This year, again, there is another $1 million for mental health initiatives. I think that is an excellent way for us to spend our money. I do not think that anybody will say that this funding will solve all of the problems or that is all we need to address mental health issues, but we did make a start last year and there is additional money in this year. So, I was very pleased to see that.

There is also $1.7 million budgeted for the OxyContin Task Force, for recommendations from that task force report. I am looking forward to see exactly what recommendations will be implemented with that $1.7 million.

There was another initiative approved, or mentioned in the Budget, for the Captain William Jackman Hospital in Labrador City for $200,000 to look at that structure down there. I visited that hospital and I would be the first one to say that there would be significant improvements required to that hospital. So, the $200,000 is an excellent initiative.

The last issue that I would like to speak to is the personal care homes and the community care homes. In the District of Topsail, and also in the District of Conception Bay South, there are quite a few community care homes and also personal care homes. Residents of these homes get excellent value for the money that it costs to have people live there, where they live in a homelike environment. This year the government did approve some money for sprinkler systems in homes that did not have them but are required to have them by order of the Fire Commissioner. The Budget also made a commitment that the rate structure of these homes will be reviewed within the near future. I believe the current rate is - I am speaking from memory again, Mr. Speaker - about $1,100 a month. I am sure we will all acknowledge that $1,100 a month is probably insufficient and that these homes do need an increase.

Mr. Speaker, while I did not touch on all of the new initiatives of the Budget, these were initiatives that I felt were important to me. Again, I will be very pleased to see these issues unfold in the upcoming year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to rise today to have a couple of words on the Budget. I thought, while it was not, Mr. Speaker, what we would want to have them call an excellent Budget, a Budget that would suit every man and every person in the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: And woman.

MR. RIDGLEY: Every person, I say to my colleague. We are all persons now. We have been transformed.

It did, in fact, Mr. Speaker, have some very positive aspects to it. I was delighted with the fact, simply that we were able to take last year's deficit of some $840 million and to see the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board rise and say that had been reduced to some $473 million, I think was a marvelous announcement and a marvelous achievement.

I am reminded with that, Mr. Speaker, of perhaps not everybody's favourite singer but Willy Nelson when, some years ago, he owed a tremendous amount of money to the IRS. It might have been, I will say $15 million, or something like that, he owed to the IRS for maybe not accurately filing his tax returns every year. They asked Willy what exactly was he going to do about it. He said: Well, if it was a smaller amount, like $50,000 or $60,000, I might get worried about it, but where it is just so much money I am going to let somebody else worry about it.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the situation that this Province was in. We all went about our daily lives assuming that everything was going to be okay and that the huge amount of money that this Province owed was going to be looked after by somebody else, and that somebody else has to be the government of this Province. You just cannot slough it off and say: well, let somebody else look after it - because, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the buck stops here. We were, in fact, operating on a credit card. We were up to our limit and we were constantly increasing our limit in terms of our spending. Our solution, if we had a $10,000 limit on our credit card, was simply to increase the limit on that card and go and spend some more money. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you cannot proceed down that line.

A month or so ago I had some students in to talk to me about student debt. One of the questions they had as part of their interview was: Mr. Ridgley, what do you think about increasing the limit that students are permitted to borrow? I had to look at them and say: Well, what exactly would that achieve? Yes, it will get you tuition for your courses. It will allow you to go and buy your books. If your student debt at this time is now $30,000, we can increase that. By all means, we can give you $50,000. Now, go ahead, do some more courses and carry on. But there has to be a reckoning. With these students I had to say to them, obviously, no. We have to find a different path to finding you cheaper education, other than simply increasing the limit of your student borrowing.

That, Mr. Speaker, was the path that this Province was on. We were on the path where basically twenty-five cents of every dollar had to go to pay the interest on our debt. Every year that would be increasing because every year we were adding another approximately $1 billion to that debt, and it does not take a mathematician or Eienstein to figure out that if your debt increases than your interest charges will increase likewise.

What we demonstrated in this Budget is that in the first seventeen months of office this government has not only stopped the downward spiral that we were on, we stopped our credit card spending, but we have, in fact, started our way to financial and fiscal recovery. Like somebody sliding down a hill out of control, it is one thing to get yourself stopped, you come up against a rock or a tree or something like that, but it is quite another thing to start your way back, back the slippery slope, and that is not going to be easy, Mr. Speaker, for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have, in fact, turned a corner. We have stopped the downward slide. We have started our way backwards but we still have to be responsible, as a government, in terms of spending the people's money. This is, in fact, the people's money, not our money. You cannot accommodate everybody's need every time somebody comes asking: We would like to have this done or we would like to have that done. There is not necessarily money for everything. How often over the past month or so have we heard the expression: Well, why can't we get this done? Sure, you have $2 billion. The fact is - well, we will have $2 billion, I am sure, but that was the quote that was thrown about. Why can't you give us our $5 million? Sure, you have $2 billion. Well, the fact is, again, we have to, as a government, be responsible in terms of spending the people's money. Where we are today, where we arrived as a Province in terms of our debt, Mr. Speaker, did not happen overnight. This is the accumulation of governments of different stripes, whether they be PC or Liberal, having made decisions that were more in the benefit of politicians sometimes than they were of the people. They were made for political motives.

We have seen in the debate even recently, Mr. Speaker, in this House, people's philosophies change so drastically that we see a confirmed and publicly advocated socialist stand up and speak in favour of a free market system because it suits the political climate, because it forwards his motives, it makes him popular. Mr. Speaker, we have to become a Province of people and of politicians who are true to ourselves and true to the people of this Province, and over time that will require hard decisions being made, decisions that will not always make us popular in the eyes of the people, but if it is the right thing to do then we have to find the political courage, the political will, to make that decision and to stand by it. We cannot simply assume that we know all, because obviously we are humans. We are simply men and women over here, put here by the people of our districts to make what we think are the best decisions; but if those decisions are made constantly in our own interests, and if we are prepared to go out in this Province and erect a sign and say the new site of x building, whether that be a hospital, a cancer care clinic, an arena or whatever, then we are making the wrong decisions for the Province. It is easy to do that. It is easy to just go out with a credit card and to simply spend to accommodate everybody's needs, but I would say that there is no happiness at the end of that road and in that type of spending.

Mr. Speaker, I was struck most recently by the fact, by some of the comments that came from the other side of the House. Sometimes when a person takes a position, advocates a position, or asks a question, you have to call into question that person's credibility in terms of where they have been before. Most of those members on the other side of the House, save for one or two, were in government for some fourteen years or fifteen years or perhaps more. Some of them were just recently elected, within the last short while, but when they stand and speak and say: Why don't you do this and why don't you do that? we are forced to ask: Well, you had the opportunity; why didn't you do that if it was the right thing to do?

Once again, oftentimes, decisions were made by governments, and governments of each stripe, for political reasons; but they would paint us, of late, as the grinches and the Scrooges determined to inflict pain and to inflict suffering on the people of this Province. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will refer, Mr. Speaker, to a couple of comments. I mentioned one recently from the Leader of the Opposition. This is from Hansard of December 16. We heard the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace rise to his feet and say: So, what about the people? Where do the people come? How do we ever get the people first and foremost in the eyes and hearts of this government? How do we ever do it?

Followed closely thereafter by the Member for Grand Bank, who said: What has become apparent is that this government cares only for the bottom line. Where is their social conscience?

Mr. Speaker, on their short trek of some ten or fifteen feet across this hon. House, those people were transformed from the then government members to a combination of Mother Teresa and St. Francis of Assisi all rolled into one. They are suddenly the people who care for the people of the Province. All of a sudden they are the ones with the big hearts. Why don't you care for the people? Why don't you look after the people? They are doing it and asking these questions for simply political reasons. There is, in fact, a bottom line. There is a bottom line always, and the bottom line with this government is that we have, in fact, done more in seventeen months than the members opposite did in fourteen years. That is the bottom line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: The bottom line is that this Province was, in fact, on a downward spiral, and the bottom line is that it has stopped. We are committed to making the hard decisions. There will not be money for everybody. We have been criticized for having committed some $117 million to the debt of the Province by paying off some mortgages that were due, or mortgages that were existing. That will prove itself over time. When we did that, people would look at it - and it is an understandable question. The question is: Well, instead of paying that $117 million, why didn't you put $5 million here? It is only $5 million. Why didn't you put $3 million there? You could have solved our problem with $3 million. We only needed $2 million.

Mr. Speaker, you will never, never, never, no matter which government you are, be able to accommodate each and every need; because, just when you have reached a point when you say, okay, we will do that and then everybody will be happy - not so! There will always be needs in a Province that is operating, as we are, with such a small population and such vast needs for infrastructure and other needs.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget has struck, I think, a fine balance between fiscal responsibility - in other words, looking after the money that this Province has to spend, and spending it wisely - and our social responsibilities, looking after the needs of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. There will always be social needs.

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that $1.8 million was committed to increase the income support rates for those who are living on income support - social assistance. That is $1.8 million. Those people, when they receive their income support cheques, will not see their cheques double by that $1.8 million, the cheques will go up only in a small amount. What that points out to us, Mr. Speaker, is just how much money it would take to rise the standard of living of people who now operate on income support to an acceptable level. One point eight million dollars, Mr. Speaker, will hardly make a dent, they may not even notice that on their cheques, but it is, in fact, a step forward.

We have also committed some $350,000 to allow for people who are on income support to earn additional money without having it being clawed back from their income support payments. We have also allocated, Mr. Speaker, some $250,000 to increase the first child benefit under the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Tax Benefit. I should add in that, Mr. Speaker, it was this Party, as an Opposition, who brought to the attention of the then government that there should not be a clawback, dollar for dollar, from our income support to offset the Child Tax Benefits. That was from advocating from this Party. This Party, in fact, is a Conservative Party, but we do have a strong social responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

In my District of St. John's North there are a lot of people who depend on social supports to make it through each day. There are many people who live in housing from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Some years ago the Auditor General pointed out that, at that time, I believe it was about four years ago, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, as a corporation, required some $76 million to look after the necessary repairs and maintenance for their existing properties. What they were given at the time by the existing government was $5 million. That was not an additional $5 million to their budget. They were told: You can spend $5 million on repairs and maintenance, an additional $5 million, but you have to take it from somewhere else in the budget.

From that time to this, Mr. Speaker, there have not been, unfortunately, additional monies allowed to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for repairs and maintenance. There is a tremendous need in a lot of the units for work to be done. We have people whose windows are leaking, and there are leaky roofs. We all know the different problems that come with the maintenance of any structure like that. These people who are not forced to live, but by their life circumstance have to live in these units, have to be given supports and we, as a government, again, responsible for our monies, have to be judicious and wise in our expenditures. We, nonetheless, have an inventory of units out there where necessary repairs have to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on what I think is a tremendous initiative in this Budget. That is the fact that some $200,000 has been committed to formulate an integrated approach to adopt a new strategy to combat poverty. In our initial Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech previous to this one, the spring of 2004, we committed ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to reducing child poverty. At that time, and I do not think the statistics have changed drastically from that time - we are the Province with the highest child poverty in the country. We are the ones with the highest child poverty, and we committed ourselves, as a government, to reducing that child poverty.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the term child poverty is a little misleading. That simply does not mean - and I do not want to trivialize this - that does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that our children do not have enough money in their pockets. When we use the term child poverty we are actually referring to families who are poor. Those families have children. Those children, obviously then, cannot receive the same benefits, Mr. Speaker, as those of families who are better to do. That, Mr. Speaker, has a tremendous effect, poverty, child poverty and family poverty, has a tremendous influence on the whole social structure. It affects you, it affects me, it affects all of us in this Province, because it has health implications if people are not on the proper diets, it has educational implications, it has various implications, Mr. Speaker, right across the social spectrum. If people are raised in poverty there is affect in later years on the expenses of the Province.

We only need look, Mr. Speaker, at the incidents of small crime and burglaries and so on that are ongoing not only in the St. John's area but across the Province. The incidents of break-ins and theft have increased simply because people are requiring money for whatever needs; not necessarily the needs of everyday living, Mr .Speaker. Much of it is drug related but we have to go back then and ask: Why have the people become addicted to drugs? Often times we will go back to a question of not having adequate resources in the beginning. People look for a way out and often times the way out is to simply dull the senses by the use of some drug, whether that be alcohol or some other drug: I will make things better because I will put myself into a drugged state and think somehow the problems will be erased. Obviously that is not so. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, by the $200,000 that has been committed to this. One of the hon. members across the House, a week or so ago, rose and made reference to this $200,000 commitment for a strategy to attack and to reduce poverty, and seemed to lead people to believe, at that time, that the word strategy - and I believe the hon. member at the time used Webster's Dictionary to look for a definition of strategy that had something to do with covering over, or cloaking, or going behind the scenes, or some ill-begotten motive on behalf of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with the minister responsible for this initiative and I am delighted to tell the people of the Province, and certainly the people of my district and all the people of the Province, that this strategy right now is ongoing and we are committed not simply to studying poverty and to coming back with a report and putting it on the shelf and say: Okay, we know how many people now in the Province are poor.

We already know that people in the Province are poor. The problem of poverty has been studied, studied and restudied. There are reports and reports and reports gathered on shelves to verify the fact that people are, in fact, poor. We do not need any more reports. We do not need to say that 15 per cent of this age group are poor, or that 20 per cent of that age group are poor. We already recognize the fact that the poor are, in fact, among us in large numbers here in this Province, but we are committed not to coming up with more statistics; we are committed to a strategy whereby we can actually make inroads and make steps forward to reducing that poverty.

In the term of our office, Mr. Speaker - I expect the term of our office will be probably somewhere in the vicinity of twelve to sixteen years, and I do not think that we can eradicate poverty even over that long tenure of office.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for St. John's North that his time has lapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. RIDGLEY: I will wrap up, Mr. Speaker.

We will commit ourselves to making steps forward, Mr. Speaker, in reducing poverty. This Budget is one of those steps. Poverty cannot be eradicated, reduced, eliminated, overnight, but if we can make a step forward each year then I, as one member of this House, will not necessarily be happy but I will be happy with the road that we are taking. We are making some hard decisions. We have, I think, laudable goals, and I look forward to having another opportunity to address the House on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It being almost 5:00 o'clock, I do now move that the House adjourn and return tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this sitting of the House of Assembly adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

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