MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin this afternoon's session, the Speaker wishes to comment on the disorder which has occurred in the public galleries for each of the past five sitting days. The Speaker has repeatedly noted that visitors are welcome in our House but they are not to participate or demonstrate in any way their approval or disapproval of proceedings in the House.

Under our Standing Orders, the Speaker is mandated to preserve order and decorum. This mandate reflects centuries of parliamentary practice and is fundamental to the well-functioning of our Assembly. While members may disagree with each other on the floor of the House, and while visitors may disagree or agree passionately with what is said in the House by elected members of this Parliament, there always must be respect for Parliament and its traditions, including respect for the Speaker and his role in our democracy. To this end, I respectfully ask for the co-operation of all visitors and for the understanding of all elected members. Disruptions in our Assembly amount to contempt of Parliament and interference with the functioning of our democracy. The Speaker asks for greater co-operation and, again, the Speaker welcomes all visitors to our House.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon with have members' statements as follows: a statement by the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the Member for Trinity North; and the Member for Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I raise the issue of security and access to the building. I was informed on my way to the House this afternoon that there have been some changes in the security provisions in terms of access to the building, hence access to this House since this House is within the confines of the building.

I was advised that, as of today, persons can only access the building by way of a photo ID, and that is to get into the building, of course. We had an incident where someone tried to come here to the House but, because of this new policy about photo IDs for today, they actually could not get in.

My understanding is that if anything is going to be done to interfere with or set up new parameters and rules for access to this House, I think everybody who is a member here ought to be given the courtesy of being told that it is happening. It certainly did not happen in this case.

I am all in favour of security. Don't get us wrong, the Opposition is in favour of security, and whatever reasonable provisions must be put in place should be put in place, but I think as a common courtesy to members here there is a process that ought to be followed. It can be dealt with either by an all-party committee of this House or it can be dealt with by the IEC, and we have had several incidents where things get done and people find out, we find out, after the fact. I just think there is absolutely no need of that. Also, if the security provisions have been changed as a result of some government policy change in security, I think it is incumbent upon government to notify people.

Your Honour indicated to me, when I mentioned this to you briefly, that persons were told today that it would be voluntary for today. That is not the experience that we understand happened today. People were told that you had to have your photo or you did not get in.

If it is a government policy, I think, again, in fairness to the public, they ought to be advised what the new policy is and there should be a time frame chosen to give people an opportunity to prepare properly.

As we say, we have no problems with security provisions of any kind that are reasonable, but it is another example again where somebody has changed rules that impact people, and the common decency and courtesy of informing somebody that it has been done was not done.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to that, concern has been expressed by the police and by the Department of Justice that there is a possibility of some serious occurrences happening in this House, or around this House. As a result - and, of course, obviously the Speaker speaks for the confines of the House - government is going to do what it takes and what is necessary in order to secure the safety of the people who are in this House.

There has been evidence of spitting from the gallery. There is evidence of empty alcohol bottles being found outside, of flasks being found outside, where people are consuming alcohol. Threats are being made on Open Line, and threats are being made in the parking lot of this building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you do not mind, I will finish. This is a serious matter, if you do not mind allowing me to finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Basically, Mr. Speaker, government is going to deal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is a very serious matter we are discussing. I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to compromise the safety of the people in this House. The hon. gentleman opposite has indicated that he is prepared to try and incite situations in this House. He is doing everything he can to create a situation in this House. Well, we are the government, we are responsible, and we are going to take care of the safety. It is based on the advice of the police in this particular district, in this particular area.

Quite simply, we are going to do what we can to protect the safety. If it requires a photo ID, that means that anybody who conducts any kind of a criminal act, either in this House or outside of this House, on the grounds or anywhere else, is subject to the law, and that is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is very telling, that it is the Premier who may utter these comments here now and not the Government House Leader, nor the minister of works and services. Again, Mr. Speaker, that exactly is the point I am trying to make. No one has any objection to any security arrangements, but the Premier should not, cannot and will not be allowed to take this place right here on his back. This is the people's House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: If the Premier wants to enforce security provisions, by all means do so, but I have as much right to be here as he does. My rights will not be infringed by him without proper notice, and that is all we request here. This nonsense about security and whatever, get on with whatever security you need but do not get on with the nonsense that you have no need or requirement to inform the public, sir. I have a right to be here and the public have a right to be informed, and you shall not be allowed to take this place on your back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has had consultations with the Sergeant-at-Arms and with the other civil authorities in the last numbers of days, and security to this House and within the parliamentary precinct is, indeed, a concern for the Speaker and for all members in this House.

I want to say to all members, based on the recommendations that the Speaker has received from the Sergeant-at-Arms and from the civil authorities, that there will be a voluntary requirement today for a photo ID. On tomorrow, I do believe notice has been given, it will be a general requirement for all visitors to the parliamentary precinct.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, to a point of privilege.

It is very important, and I know how seriously you take your role in terms of being the person in charge of the precincts of the House of Assembly, which is a different issue - as you would know and you could articulate to anyone - than any particular rule that the Premier himself might want to put in place on an ongoing basis with respect to getting into this building or the West Block, because it is very telling.

The Member for Humber Valley said, when I said: Well, we didn't hear about it. Nobody asked us. Because you, Your Honour, said: I have concern for the safety of all members. Well, we did not express any about our safety. So nobody bothered to check with fourteen members on this side of the House. The Member for Humber Valley said: But you are not the government. You would know more than anybody, Mr. Speaker, that this House is not run by the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: They can decide what happens out in the rest of the building, they can make laws out around the rest of the Province, they can drive people thirty-five feet away from the door to smoke if they want because they are the government, but they cannot unilaterally set the rules for the House of Assembly.

I ask, under a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if you would consider soliciting the views of all members in this House as to whether or not it is reasonable, right and proper that the rule for the future, for anybody wanting to come to the public gallery of the House of Assembly, is that you must produce a photo ID or you will not be able to come into the public gallery, regardless of whether there is any dispute going on or not. Because this dispute, like others, will end.

Then the rule that I have understood you to say as the Chair, that based on some advice you have gotten, without consulting fourteen members of the House at all - I believe that is a breach of our privilege - is that the rule, forever and a day after this, is that if any citizen of this Province, this country, anywhere else in the world wants to visit this public gallery that you have now decided that there must be a photo ID produced.

I can tell you, when I visit the House of Commons in Ottawa I am asked to sign in, which used to be the rule here until yesterday, because that is why the rule was adopted. It was consistent with parliamentary practice elsewhere in the country and around the world in democracies. I have never been asked for a photo ID to go sit in the gallery in the House of Commons. I have been into the Chamber in London, England, the motherland of democracy that we build our systems on, I have never been asked for a photo ID. On what basis I ask, Mr. Speaker? I plead with you, on a matter of privilege, to reconsider the statement that you just made. Have some time and show some real respect for all of the members in this House as forty-eight equal elected members. If the Premier and the government - as the Member for Humber Valley would want to say - want to go outside and make some different rules, because I can tell you one other thing, Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: It is a point of privilege, I would say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He might not understand the severity of it, but it is a very serious point. You have to be able to give the time to make your point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: As the Minister of Transportation and Works from Lewisporte would say: My father told me: Heave it out of you, Tommy. Well, each member says their piece in their own way. It is the Speaker who will tell me when I should sit down and stop, not the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Let me tell you this, this morning when we first heard that IDs were being required for the first time in history - at somebody's order, IDs are being requested. It was not as you described, that it was voluntary. The first order was: If you don't show an ID, you don't get in. When we became aware of it in our office, we asked questions. They said: Well, it will be voluntary for today.

We checked in the West Block, and there was a different set of rules in the West Block. You could walk in the West Block with no ID, but you could not come in through this door unless you had an ID. Then we actually had a person over there at the desk, because we sent them there, and we said: Go over now that they know we are onto this and try again to get in. The second time they tried to get in, they had just gotten a call from someone saying: You had better start asking for some IDs over here, too, because it does not look too good that you can walk into that government building a few feet away without an ID, but the rule is you cannot walk into this government building unless you have an ID. So what are the rules?

It is up to the government, I say to the Member for Humber Valley, to make the rules about security for the government property and the government buildings. If the Premier himself feels, under advice, that he needs additional security, which other premiers have had in the past, and rightfully so, so be it, do all of those things, but I plead, as a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that any security measures applying to the forty-eight members of this Legislature and the people's democratic House be done by yourself, respecting the rights of all forty-eight members.

I cannot say it any more forcefully than that, we have not been consulted in any way, shape or form about any change of security procedures with regard to accessing this Legislature. So, I would ask you to take that under advisement, Mr. Speaker, and we would gladly send some people to meet with you and representatives of the other parties, to speak on behalf of all the members, as to whether or not we think that the Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador should be the only one in Canada, to my knowledge, that would require a photo ID for the members of the general public to come to the public gallery. It is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, and I would humbly ask you to reconsider it and to involve all forty-eight members from all three parties in that discussion before you make a final determination as to what is in the best interest of our safety in the operation of our democratic rights inside this Legislature.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

To the point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition, he has singularly focused in on access to the public galleries and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been denied.

With respect to security arrangements in the House, the Leader of the Opposition is correct, that is neither up to the Opposition nor the government. The Speaker, solely and wholly, decides on security arrangements with respect to the House of Assembly and the precincts of the House.

My second point is that the Leader of the Opposition has made the point that, for the first time in history, we have required identification or some sort of visitor accreditation to get into the House of Assembly. That is clearly not true. I will just read to him his own statement on November 19, 2001, after September 11. He said, "The use of photo ID cards for staff will be an important component..." -

MR. GRIMES: Staff.

MR. E. BYRNE: If you will let me finish the statement. I listened to you in silence, and I appreciate the points you make and I hope that you can afford me the same opportunity. Seeing as you believe you own rights are breached, I wouldn't want you to interrupt when I am trying to make our point.

He said, "The use of photo ID cards for staff will be an important component of a more secure environment." Visitors will always be welcome to the public galleries. "Other important security measures are currently under review, including the use of passes and accreditations for visitors. These new protocols will assist with visitor identification and management of any emergency situation that may arise." That was a statement that the Leader of the Opposition made in 2001 when he was Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, that we can choose to overly politicize this. There is no attempt by government, in any way, shape or form, to limit anybody from coming to the House. We can see, today, that the seats are full. Obviously people had the opportunity to go through the security provision in government buildings outside the precincts. Government will not attempt in any way, nor should we and nor do we have the right to attempt in any way, shape or form, to limit or inhibit any member from coming to visit the public gallery. If there are situations that arise within the public gallery or the precincts of the House, that is for the Speaker, in his judgement, to decide upon in consultation with the appropriate security officials. It is not for government to decide. We have never stepped into that arena, and nor would we try.

I do want to correct the mis-perception by the Leader of the Opposition. We are not the only place in the country. I have been in the Mother of Parliaments too, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and the gallery sits behind screens and glass. I do not know if you have seen that, but I certainly have. In other Legislatures across the country there are more stringent security provisions put in place. As a matter of fact, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, based upon my own personal experience, this gallery is more open than most in the country. If you want to go to Ottawa, you have to pass through three x-ray screens, you have to take everything out of your pockets. They secure you this way, just the same as if you were going through an airport.

The fact of the matter is that what you have said is not entirely true, so I do want to correct, based on my own experiences across the country, in visiting other Legislatures that I have been in, in the last decade, that this, in no way, is severe or could be considered severe by any comparative standard.

The fact of the matter is, nobody is limited from coming into this House, nor would we try. That is up to the Speaker, and on the basis of that, Mr. Speaker, I would submit there is no point of privilege because government has not tried to stop people from coming into the House.

The last point: All we have done, Mr. Speaker, is act upon the advice of the appropriate personnel within government, and in no way, shape or form has anyone been denied from coming to the public gallery.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not be belabour the point, but it is very telling, what I did ask the Speaker to do was to consider involving all of us equally, as members of this House, in making decisions about this House. The sad part about it is that the Government House Leader would try to compare what is happening here today to the terrorist attack of 9-11.

When we made a public statement, which is what nobody made today - there was no public announcement or statement today - the Premier made a decision about what was going to happen outside, and he gave examples of people spitting from the galleries. Well, a photo ID produced out there does not stop someone from spitting from the galleries. The screen that the Government House Leader talked about, which is in some Parliaments, glass screens, that stops spitting. So, if the concern is to stop spitting, why don't we have the Speaker up announcing today that there will be a screen put up in the front of the gallery? They can still hear and they can see, but there will be a protection, if that is the case. That is the example that the Premier used.

Mr. Speaker, presenting a photo ID outside the door, before you come in, and then we do have to go through screens here, the same kind of security that is at airports - you have to empty your pockets if there is anything metal - there are detectors here. This place is deemed to be secure from that point of view.

If there are other issues that the Speaker believes - and all I have asked under a point of privilege is, Mr. Speaker, if you believe it after consultation with the members. The Government House Leader says he wasn't involved in it. They were not asked. We were not asked. You said you had some advice from some security personnel. When we have matters about the House, let's convene a committee. Let's put some members of all three Parties and give us an opportunity to discuss what we think, as forty-eight equally-elected representatives of the people, as to what the process should be, what the protocol should be, and what the security provisions should be for the people's House. That is all I ask, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Just a final point, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I take exception to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to draw an analogy that I am somehow comparing what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador today to a terrorist attack. I mean, how ridiculous. That clearly is not the case. The only point I was making -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) into the House now, won't we?

MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to your leader. I only appeal for the same opportunity, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

If this is as serious a matter as you think, then you would at least wait for the opportunity -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) armed guards around the precincts of the House all the time -

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, then, let me finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The fact of the matter is that in no way was I trying to draw any such comparison. I take exception to that. The only point I was trying to make was that it is not the first - at one time anybody could walk into the House. When the Member for Bellevue was Works, Services and Transportation Minister, based upon expert advice, he made a statement in the House one day that changed those protocols. No one is being denied the opportunity from getting into the House.

To the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made about members being informed, it is my understanding that the Speaker, on a regular basis, informs both myself, as Government House Leader, and the Opposition House Leader, on any changes or situations, and he has done that over time; but, if there is a way that you want to be more informed, or we would like to be more informed, Mr. Speaker, that is your call. We would be happy to participate in anything that you may see fit in your call as Speaker to keep Members of the Legislature informed about whatever is going on, whether that be through the IEC or whether you meet with us on a regular basis on a Monday morning, Tuesday or Wednesday morning, or whatever. That is your call. All I can say is that, as one member acting in the capacity as Government House Leader, we would certainly be prepared to participate at any level at that point upon your call.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker thanks hon. members for their presentations on this very important issue. The Speaker will take the matter under advisement; however, the Speaker would like to invite the House Leaders to dialogue with him in the privacy of his Chambers either later this afternoon or perhaps on tomorrow morning. I will try to arrange a convenient time that would be mutually agreeable to all parties. We will also include in that meeting representatives from the New Democratic Party as well. I will try to arrange that meeting within the next number of hours.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, with your member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I attended a celebration of the thirty-sixth annual Charter Night at the Community Five Lions Club in Dildo. During this event, many individuals were recognized for their contributions to the Club. Clarence Mollon, King Lion of the Community Five Lions Club, was voted 2005 Lion of the Year for his continuous commitment to the Club, outstanding leadership abilities, and willingness to lend a hand whenever possible.

The Community Five Lions Club has made significant financial contributions to their community. The amount of donations given out this year was approximately $15,000, which was shared among five communities from Blaketown to New Harbour. In appreciation of all the hard work by the service group, and in keeping with the theme of National Volunteer Week, I would like to extend my appreciation for their involvement and dedication to the community.

Mr. Speaker, during this event, the Lions Club presented an award of bravery to an outstanding individual in my district. I am very proud to recognize Shandi Reid of New Harbour, a member of the 209 Great Eastern Sea Cadets, for her courage. During training sessions in May, 2003, Shandi rescued a fellow Sea Cadet, Courtney Brown, from drowning. Shandi has been recognized as a heroine in her community, and I would like to recognize her for her tremendous act of bravery.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating the Community Five Lions Club for their continued support in our community, and I would ask all members to join the Lions Club and myself in recognizing Shandi Reid for her courageous act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, yesterday I attended a volunteer appreciation banquet in Milltown - Head Bay d'Espoir. The town and Strategic Plan Implementation Committee organized the event to thank community volunteers for their dedication and hard work.

Milltown - Head Bay d'Espoir has a population of less than 900, and they have 250 volunteers in thirty-five organizations. One hundred and eighty-six of those volunteers were presented certificates of appreciation last night. This certificate was designed by local volunteer, Herb Dunphy. That is the one that Herb designed, the certificate.

Two of the volunteers, Ms Sue Dunphy and Ms Eileen Colbourne, wrote a poem reflecting the reason for celebrating volunteer efforts in their community. Mr. Speaker, on their behalf, I would like to share the poem with members of the House.

O this is the place where

The volunteers gather

In all kinds of capacities, in our fair towns

With two hundred and fifty, now isn't that nifty

In thirty-five groups, now you mark that down.

There's a large number of us

In Head Bay and Milltown

Who give of our energy, talents and time

All of us turn out and hope we don't burn out

To keep our community working just fine.

There's Gordon our mayor

In charge of our future

With lots of experience, because of his years

Together with Clarence, Herb, Jerry and Ivan

There's George and there's Richard

Now aren't they all dears.

We've gathered together

To praise your good efforts

You volunteers who give of your time

We thank you for helping

To community building

The benefits surely will outdo our rhyme!!!

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate members of the Strategic Plan Implementation Committee for organizing such a remarkable event. Members include: Sue Dunphy, Boyd Pack, Clarence Kelly, Georgina Brushett, Leveson Kearley and Muriel Marks.

During this Volunteer Week, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating volunteers in Milltown-Head Bay d'Espoir, and all volunteers in the Bay d'Espoir region, and in the Province as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Sunday past, I had the pleasure of attending the twenty-second annual Ceremonial Review of the 2997 Royal Oak Army Cadet Corp in Little Heart's Ease.

Mr. Speaker, in the twenty-two year history of the Army Cadet movement in the Southwest Arm area of Trinity North, hundreds of young men and women have benefitted from a tremendous program focused on the development of our future leaders. This year, the Corp boasts a membership of thirty young men and women.

Mr. Speaker, during the Annual Review we witnessed demonstrations in drill, band, public speaking, bush craft, marksmanship, as well as guitar and piano recitals.

Mr. Speaker, this year the Reviewing Officer was Captain Ian Lambert, a career Military Officer who is currently stationed in Ottawa, who himself is a graduate of the 2997 Royal Oak Cadet movement. It was indeed a proud moment for him to return for the Annual Inspection of the Cadet Corp that gave him the introduction to his military career.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day many awards were presented. The top four, however, were: The Lord Strathcona Medal was awarded to Alicia Seward. The Legion Medal of Excellence was awarded to Stephanie Smith. The 2997 Outstanding Cadet Award was given to Lucas Lambert, and the Duke of Edinburgh Award to Darrin Marsh.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all hon. members in this House to join me today in congratulating and celebrating the great work of the cadets, the volunteers, and the many leaders who help this movement throughout the Little Heart's Ease and Southwest Arm area of my district.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to a group of students from my district who are members of The Pallister's Players drama club of Templeton Collegiate High School in Gillams.

The Templeton drama club recently won the regional high school drama festival for their performance of the play, Trouble is Eating My Pants. This play, under the direction of Steve Perchard, was also named Best Play in the festival.

This year, the three day festival was held from April 7 to April 9 at Regina High School in Corner Brook. Eight drama clubs competed at the festival for a chance to represent the region at the 2005 provincial festival which will be held at Bonne Bay Academy in Woody Point in early May..

In addition to the club's win, Templeton actors Jeff Anderson and Chastity Wickens won awards for best supporting actors, while Devon Sheppard was also recognized for his acting abilities.

The club also received an award for Best Costumes.

I am pleased to note that this is the second year in a row that Templeton Collegiate's Pallister's Players has won the regional festival.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to this group of talented students, and offer them and all participants best wishes as they prepare to compete in the provincial high school drama festival.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I attended a Bronze Medal Award Ceremony in Stephenville for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Award Young Canadians Challenge is a citizenship and leadership program for young women and men. Through the program, youth participate in fitness, skill, service and expedition activities and receive awards at the Bronze, Silver, and Gold levels.

The program is administered in Newfoundland and Labrador by a volunteer Provincial Council in partnership with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

The Bronze Medal Award Ceremony this past weekend gave me an opportunity to meet some very talented youth of our Province. The twenty-nine Bronze Medal recipients obviously take pride in personal and community development. I am sure my colleagues will join me in congratulating them on their impressive accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to inform the House of a number of activities concerning the Duke of Edinburgh Award over the next few months. In May, the Western Council will be hosting the Silver Award Ceremony. The Honourable Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, will present Silver Awards to approximately eighty young people from across the Province.

In addition, His Royal Highness, The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, will be in the Province on May 31 and June 1 to take part in two Duke of Edinburgh Awards Program functions. On May 31, there will be a youth soiree in St. John's for all participants. On June 1, His Royal Highness will take part in the Gold Awards Ceremony honouring over 100 of our youth.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to encourage our youth and offer meaningful programs to help them develop strong social and professional skills. Programs such as the Duke of Edinburgh Awards provide important recognition of the contributions our young people make in their own communities and to the Province overall.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say that each and every one of us on this side of the House want to congratulate the twenty-nine young people who were awarded the bronze medals this past weekend, and to say that we know the Duke of Edinburgh Award is an exciting program, a challenging program, where youth learn about citizenship and leadership. We also look forward to the awarding of the silver and gold medals this summer and look forward to His Royal Highness, Prince Edward, travelling to our Province.

I am sure each member of this House looks forward to seeing the list of people who were successful this year in receiving the awards, and we want to congratulate each and every one of them and all those involved in the program.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for a copy of her statement.

We would like to be associated, as well, Mr. Speaker, with the words that the minister has in her statement, acknowledging the work of young people in our Province. It is a good program that acknowledges the work of young people and it is a program that teaches them the skills and abilities that they will need.

We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the youth of today are the leadership of tomorrow, and the more training and the more things they take part in today the more prepared they will be for the leadership roles they will assume in the future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers? Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, when questioned about a potential conflict of interest situation in making decisions regarding the crab industry, the Minister of Finance stated that he didn't feel he was in a conflict of interest because his brothers didn't live in the same house he was in. The minister stated yesterday that he divested himself of his fishery and other business interests in the 1990s.

I ask the minister once again today: Will he tell this House to whom he either sold or transferred his business interests at that time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I divested of all of my interests in, I think it was May of 1993. It might be early June, but May I am fairly certain. I divested and those companies now are not in - family members don't even own those companies in any way. The person I divested to in the family is out of the business entirely and, to my knowledge, hasn't been involved for several years, certainly for a number of years, and has no interest in the fishing industry, to my knowledge.

The only ones who are involved, to my knowledge, in ownership in the business are two who are minor shareholders of a company owned by the brother of the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Ches Penney, who is the major shareholder - they are minor shareholders - whose sister sat in Cabinet for a number of years, who is an owner of numerous enterprises in this Province, a very successful businessman. If we had more around like him to create employment in our Province, we would be a lot better off.

I have never considered the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, when she sat in Cabinet, or any other people, to be in any way in conflict, in any way with numerous holdings all over this Province, in other than fisheries issues and other issues to be in conflict, because it is not according to the regulations. She was not, according to the regulations or anybody else, and I am not and I have no interest whatsoever. Twelve years ago in Opposition, under no obligation in anyway, Mr. Speaker, did I have to sell any assets whatsoever. I sold every asset I owned in the fishing industry. So not only would there be conflict, there would be no perceived conflict. Even when I was in Opposition, there was no requirement to do so; long before any regulations came in.

I am absolutely clear on that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and it is wrong and it is improper to go on public airwaves with a character assassination.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I guess he does not want to tell us exactly whom it is that he divested the interest in.

Mr. Speaker, in light of these conflict of interest concerns and the potential of a minister who is participating in decisions that impact his immediate family, I ask the Premier: What conflict of interest guidelines do you expect your ministers to follow when participating in Cabinet decisions relating to family members?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will follow the same guidelines that were followed by the previous government, for the Leader of the Opposition. As a former premier, he knows what those guidelines are. He knows how we behaved when we were on the other side of the House. There was no character assassination. There was no attempt to defame someone's character, someone like the Minister of Finance, who has an impeccable reputation in this Province. To go on a character assassination is really pitiful, quite frankly, and very unfortunate. As a matter of fact, this particular gentleman has a legal lawsuit against the hon. gentleman opposite for the statements that he has made. There is no doubt about it, what he said.

Also, Mr. Speaker, if I can, while the hon. gentleman opposite was in power as Premier of this Province, we acted as a responsible Opposition because - in fact, the hon. Premier's brother Ross was a negotiator for CUPE, at a time when he was Premier, and he gave a raise to the public section unions. Your brother was a public sector negotiator. Did we come up and ask you whether you excused yourself? His brother happens to be a pastor, was he involved in the denominational education discussions? His other brothers actually work at Abitibi. In fact, did he excuse himself when the legislation was passed for the No. 7 machine in Grand Falls? Did he excuse himself on that? Finally, when your good wife, who works at NAPE, sits there in the office, in a very important position, did we ever, for one minute, question your -

AN HON. MEMBER: The NLTA

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am sorry, the NLTA.

Did we ever question your integrity or try and attack your character or assassinate you or your family like you are trying to do this man? That is absolutely despicable!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Given the nature of the questions that have been asked, the Speaker has extended the usual time limit of one minute. However, I would ask members, who are responding to questions, if they would keep their answers within the one minute time frame.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier might want to check the record, for the record. When members, like the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, were involved and engaged in Cabinet discussions about the fishery that might involve her brother, she excused herself from the Cabinet and had it recorded by the Clerk of the Council. Check your facts.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries continuously states that there will be an independent arbitrator who will make decisions regarding raw material shares. However, in a letter of April 15 from his deputy minister, the deputy minister states, and these are the words: The word arbitrator is used only as a term of convenience. This is not a formal arbitration because the minister has the final say in the shares.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, how can he stand in this House and say this person is an independent arbitrator when his deputy minister writes to everybody and says the exact opposite?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite easy to say that. Simply put, the person who will arbitrate the shares in a raw material sharing system is independent of government, from outside of government. I believe the person, if I am not mistaken, is a lawyer downtown. I have no idea who the person is. I would not know him if he walked into the gallery or in the House of Assembly today. I have never met him. I do not care if I ever do, as a fact of the matter.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this person is to arbitrate the shares. Those shares - as the former Premier would know and as his former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would know - can only be implemented as a conditional licence by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Similar to all other conditions and licences that are applied from time to time on fish processing operations in this Province; just the same as there were fish processing conditions applied by the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture when he was there. That is where the authority rests. That is how we plan on doing it. Mr. Speaker, he knows full well exactly what the process is. That is what we are planning on doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So it looks like there is a pretty thorough piece of work done. There is an arbitrator in place. The minister has no idea who he is, what his credentials are. I guess somebody over there knows. I guess, maybe the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has continuously stated that there will be a minimum quota of 90 per cent of the previous three year average for each plant across the Province. In the same letter that I just referenced, April 15, from the deputy minister, the deputy minister states as follows: Companies do not receive an automatic 90 per cent of their three year average purchases. This would potentially result in an oversubscription of the quota.

So you have a minister saying you are guaranteed 90 per cent, and a deputy minister writing him saying you cannot have it, because if we give you 90 per cent there is not enough crab to go around.

I ask the minister: Who is telling the truth in that instance, the minister or the deputy minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, both. It is quite simple. In case the member does not know, the quota was just reduced by roughly 8 per cent, so it is very difficult to ensure - to be sure that if somebody has their share, based on 90 per cent of the previous three year average, obviously you cannot give them 90 per cent. You cannot give them that number this year. It is 90 per cent of the three year average, which is the base. That is then applied to the Total Allowable Catch for this year, and that results in the number that they will be allowed to process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday in this Legislature the Minister of Fisheries stated, in answer to a direct question, that he did not know what the quotas would be for the St. Anthony plant or any of the fish plants across the Province.

I ask the minister again today: Why did he provide that misleading answer last Thursday when he had already sent letters last month, as early as March 22, advising plants of their initial quotas for this year? Why did he mislead the House in that fashion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely did not mislead the House. What was sent out on March 22 - if that is the date, I cannot remember the exact date - what was sent out in a letter to all processors was: This is based on the available information in this department, based on information that has been provided by your company and your processing facility. This is what 90 per cent of the three year average represents, based on the information that you have provided to us. If this information is not correct, please contact the department and we will see if we can work out any disagreement on this, see if there is other information that has not been disclosed.

In some cases, some companies have come forth with audited statements showing that the numbers that they had disclosed to us were, in fact, in error.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that is how the 90 per cent scenario got developed. What the final number will be is yet to be determined, and that will be determined based on the arbitration process which is ongoing as we speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is becoming more obvious every day that the minister has bungled this entire system from the start. There is no independent arbitrator. There is no 90 per cent quota for anybody, and there is no way, he said last week, to get the processing companies to open their books to identify what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from some processors whose initial offer for this year was 60 per cent of last year's quota, and from others whose initial offer for this year is over 90 per cent of last year's quota. There does not seem to be any uniform set of rules.

I ask the minister: What set of rules did he use in sending out the initial offers to the processors, and were the same rules applied to the smallest operators as to the biggest operators?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible that numbers would be different on last year's production. We are using a three year average. Obviously, every operation in the Province did not process the same amount last year as they did the year before, and the year before that. A three year average generates a number that is not consistent with any one year necessarily. Unless somebody processed 1 million pounds in each of the three years, then you would expect that you would come up with a 90 per cent number at 900,000. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was teaching, was not a math teacher or he would be able to figure that out. I suppose he would, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers that have been generated, have been generated in a consistent manner. The numbers that have been generated -

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

At the beginning of the afternoon session -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

At the beginning of the afternoon session, the Speaker asked all visitors for their co-operation. If there should be further disruptions, the Speaker will have no choice but to have the galleries cleared.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know one thing about math. The three year average for St. Anthony is zero, if the minister wants to talk about that.

Mr. Speaker, in the March 22 letter to plant owners, the minister stated - and it is the minister's letter, not the deputy. Here are his words: It is important that each operator's share be developed in time for an April fishery. In the same letter the minister stated - and these are his words: The arbitrator will finish his meetings and make his recommendations to me by April 7; some time ago.

I ask the minister: What new timelines does he have in place for the arbitrations and the possible opening of the fishery, since he is already somewhat late with his previous timelines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the arbitrator has been given two weeks to consult with the people in the industry, to hear their submissions, and the numbers will be generated subsequent to that. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason why, as it relates to the sharing, the fishery cannot open. There is nothing that would require the fishery to not open, as a result of a lack of hard and fast numbers being generated. The fishery carries on for some period of time and we can easily have the numbers generated before the closure of the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It sounds fairly typical of this government. We will do it by the seat of our pants. We will fly along as we go and hope for the best.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. TAYLOR: At least we are trying to do something. That is more than you (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I don't mean to get the minister upset today, I am just trying to ask some pretty straightforward questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to ask some straightforward questions and get some information.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that processors have been notified that their hearing with the arbitrator, which will happen sometime in the next two weeks, is limited to the maximum of a two-hour time period? In other words, a processor fighting for their plant, fighting for their workers, fighting for their community, is told by the minister that you can fight, but when the two hours is up shut up and go home.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a two-hour time limit placed on arbitration hearings, and that is done because the numbers that have been provided to us - people who have arguments to make, if they were doing things properly over the past number of years and living by the letter of the law, as it relates to their declarations, their submissions, on a daily basis, or their production records, then the numbers that the department has should be accurate. If they are not, Mr. Speaker, it is solely as a result of misreporting by processing facilities in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fairly typical. Somebody else's fault again. Somebody else is at fault every time.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Does he have any concerns, any different or renewed concerns, today, now that the largest - if not the largest, one of the largest - crab processors in the Province is no longer supporting the approach that he and the Premier are trying to unilaterally impose in this sector?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that does not surprise me, that one of the largest - if not the largest - crab processing companies in this Province is opposed to what we are trying to do. They are opposed because they do not like the fact that we are trying to limit corporate concentration in this industry. They are opposed because they do not like the approach that we are taking on a limiting control of ownership in the industry. They are opposed, Mr. Speaker, because they do not like the way that we are trying to share the resource around. We are trying to achieve some regional balance in the Province. They are opposed, Mr. Speaker, because they would rather see us take the approach that the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the former Premier and the former government, took for too many years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - that has led us to the point where 50 per cent of the crab production in the Province is controlled by four companies. That happened, Mr. Speaker, on their watch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the people of the Province are glad to know that everybody else is wrong and at fault except the minister and the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, just for the record - my last question - the vast majority of fish harvesters - I think the minister would acknowledge this - do not support production quotas. The largest crab processor in the Province no longer supports production quotas and the heavy-handed approach. The union does not support this. Nobody supports this, that we can tell, anywhere in the Province, except the Fisheries Minister and the Premier.

I ask the minister. Now that he has clearly bungled this completely and totally, how does he expect to have any credibility as the minister when everybody else in the sector and in the industry thinks he is wrong?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, let's just lay the cards on the table. It is time for the people of the Province, the people in the fishing industry and everybody in government, both in Opposition and in government, to make up their minds what they want in this industry. Do they want government to manage the industry? Do they want issues like regional balance, corporate concentration of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, dealt with or not? Because if they do, this is the plan that was laid out by us, based on a report by Eric Dunne, based on a report by Dave Vardy, based on a report by David Jones, based on a report by Richard Cashin.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, if people do not want that, we can pull back. We can pull back and we can let the market and we can let free enterprise drive the industry. We can pull back.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker orders that the galleries be closed, and in view of the disorder that has occurred in the House, that they remain closed for the balance of the sitting day.

This House is in recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

It is my understanding that we have, according to my calculation, about ten minutes and fourteen seconds left for Question Period. Question Period can now resume.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has come to our attention that a serious situation has developed in relation to the delivery of health care services in the Trinity-Conception area. Because of the resignation of a medical control officer, effective midnight tonight, at the Carbonear Hospital, ambulance operators will not be able to administer services such as defibrillation, attach an IV or administer drugs. I ask the minister: Is he aware of this horrible situation, and what does he intend to do about it?

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.

No, I am not aware of it, I say to the hon. member, but I will follow up on it.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, I am sure that will be of little consolation to the people who are going to get an ambulance at 12:00 o'clock tonight and be refused medication.

Mr. Speaker, some gas companies have now voluntarily reduced gas prices. Even the oil companies see a need to reduce prices, but this government that is awash in cash from taxes collected off gas does not want to give consumers a break.

I ask the minister: Will this government consider limiting the excise tax on gasoline, or are they going to continue to gouge consumers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The tax on gasoline is based on per litre. It is 16.5 cents. It does not matter what the consumption is, it is still the same price. If the price was 20 cents or $5, it is still 16.5 cents. We are getting a lower percent of the revenues on gas now, as a percentage, than we got before the increase. Our uptake has not changed on it.

Mr. Speaker, we are not awash in cash. We are facing a $500 million deficit put into us by the people on that side of the House, and now they want us to spend and put us right back from where we are trying to take us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the public out there now this afternoon understood all of that. It is just like talking to a calculator. How do you expect people in rural Newfoundland to be able to relate to that?

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that there is something wrong with the interruption formula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, they are coming to life over there. Oh, yes, now we have the lips going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members on both sides for their co-operation. The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I ask him if he would pose his question now.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the interruption formula is not working. Gas prices have been going up when they should be coming down, and when they do come down they do not come down as quickly as they go up.

I want to ask the Minister of Government Services: When is she going to amend the Petroleum Products Pricing Act to offer better protection to consumers of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we have gas regulations in this Province that were put in by the former Administration. The prices are reviewed in the middle of the month. We have a mechanism in place there. If the prices are consistent for five days, whether they are up or down, this interruption formula can be put in place to do the adjustment.

The regulations were there when my hon. colleague was minister. He never saw fit to change them. The regulations are working, as far as I am concerned, as a government. The citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador asked for this, the consumers, and that is what they have. It stabilizes the gas prices at the pumps, and that is what it is intended to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister does not understand what her formula is all about. She does not understand the principles. Interruption was put in place to protect the small rural communities of this Province, which this government knows nothing about. That is what interruption was used for.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a quick question: Does she think it is fair that when gas prices increase the formula protects the rich oil companies, and when prices go down it does not protect the consumers in the same way?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, gas prices are beyond the government's control. That is dictated by the world market.

The regulations that are in place -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: There has been nothing change since the former government put those regulations in place. They were put in to stabilize the prices at the gas pumps, which they are doing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Acting Minister of Health, and it concerns the provincial drug plan.

I want to say to the minister that our Province has one of the highest percentages of people with no drug coverage, private or provincial, in the country, at a rate of approximately 32 per cent. During the First Ministers' meeting in September, it was agreed that no Canadians should go without drug coverage in this country.

I want to ask the minister - for catastrophic drugs - when will the minister be bringing in a plan that will assist people to acquire drugs that they need, that they cannot afford to purchase at the present time?

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.

That was one of the items on the agenda at the meeting with the Health Ministers that was held this past weekend. The federal minister was not there. It is an issue that we need to raise with the federal government. They are not using the term catastrophic drug anymore, and it has not been clearly defined what a catastrophic drug is, but we do indicate that there are programs in place in our Province, and we spend $114 million a year now for low income people or seniors in dealing with those, and there are certain special authorizations that you can follow and get approved.

Some catastrophic drugs have to go through a proper process to ensure that they are safe. They have gone through proper research on some of these drugs, and some of these are now in that process there. We feel the pharmaceutical company, with proper research done on some of these drugs, it is incumbent upon the pharmaceutical company to have a certain right to ensure that these are safe, and the federal government has a right to ensure it before they approve these.

Many of these are in the process there. There was no final conclusion reached across the country on this, but we are working with the federal government and calling on them to move forward, in line with the pharmaceutical companies, to ensure that they do meet the necessary standards there, and then our Province and the rest of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - the country are prepared to participate in a process when that happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I say to the minister, all Canadian provinces, with the exception of ours, provide and recognize the situation and have implemented equitable programs for their residents. The Romanow plan called for coverage to begin when drugs cost more than $1,500 per year, and the Senate Committee on Social Affairs talked about people needing help once their drug needs exceed 3 per cent of their annual income.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, when we talk about fairness and equity across this country, we demand that this Province be treated equitably and fairly. Doesn't the minister think that the residents of the Province should receive the same treatment when it comes to the cost of drugs associated with MS, Alzheimer's, and other such diseases?

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.

Different jurisdictions across the country fund different drugs at different levels. I will comment on one of the ones you asked there. I will use Alzheimer's, for example. There are several provinces in the country that have added that on the list, and they have all added it during election time. In the AD2000 study that is published in Lancet 2004, it indicates, post the decision by the medical advisory group, after the decision it showed that research shows that it does not delay institutionalization and there is minimal, if any, benefit from it.

Memorial University of Epidemiology, just recently, in 2004, indicated they substantiated those results, that it doesn't delay institutionalization, and many of them put it on a political basis just before elections there. We want to do it on sound clinical advice from medical professionals in any of these. If the member has a comment on any other specific one, I will be only delighted to answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: The member certainly does, I say to the minister. How about the MS, that has been proven? You talked a lot about the ones that haven't been, but I want to say: Is the minister's response that we have to wait for an election in this Province before government is going to bring in such a program? Because, if it is, that is another two-and-a-half years that people in this Province will have to go without.

I say to the minister, there are future health care savings to the Province if people get the drugs that they require now to correct their disabilities, rather than ending up in institutions a few years down the road.

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.

This year's Budget is proof of that. There is no election this year and we added twenty-five new drugs to the list this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have about half a minute left.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that is true and that is great news for some seniors and people on income support, but I say to the minister, you can add whatever drugs you want to the provincial plan, many people, the vast majority in this Province, will not be able to access them.

I say to the minister, when is he going to bring in a plan that will help the people who get up each day, go to work, work hard all year long, but do not have a drug plan because it is not provided by their employer and cannot afford to buy the drugs that they need to treat their illnesses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have two programs in place. One is for seniors who meet the guaranteed income supplement, and we have a plan in place for people on income support. Also, for low income people who are not on either one of these, who submitted a financial statement that their means is not sufficient to be able to access those drugs because of cost, there is also provision to be able to deal with those people, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

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

I want to present a petition today on behalf of the fish harvesters and plant workers of this Province with regards to the plant production quotas.

Mr. Speaker, we hear so much about the Dunne report, I just want to reference a portion of it. I do not know if I have the right documentation here, and I am sure I can be corrected from the other side, but what Mr. Dunne started off to say, with regards to raw material sharing, he said that this was a review and assessment. He would include brief descriptions of such a system. He would have a summary of raw material sharing initiatives that was in this Province, and he would conclude with a review of some terms and conditions. He went on to say - and I do not know, maybe I am hearing all of this wrong. He said: There will not be any attempt in this report to actually design such a sharing system. That would have to involve a collaborative and focused effort between industry and government.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing in this House, day in and day out, that what we are hearing and that has been put before the fish harvesters of this Province, is what they want and what was said in the Dunne report. Maybe this Chapter 7, I have here, is not the correct one. I do not know, but I can tell you, it is the copy that we have and that is what is stated very clearly in that report.

Mr. Speaker, the harvesters of this Province are very concerned about this. I think we have seen that day in and day out. I hope the end will soon come to it, so that they can get back on the water and answer to the request of the plant workers so that they can get back to work. I am sure every member, on all sides of this House, are getting the same message.

Mr. Speaker, we all get e-mails with regards to this system. They are talking about that they have major concerns, that once all the small processors and the buyers are swallowed up by the big enterprises, the underutilized species that they have and try to sell, they will not have anyone to take them from them. They also have concerns, Mr. Speaker, about losing their freedom of choice: What to sell, where to sell it, how much they charge for it, and when and under what conditions they can go fishing. They have major concerns with it, Mr. Speaker.

In the paper that I reference, on several occasions, are frequently asked questions. One of the questions says: Isn't the raw material share really a community quota? The response was: No, this is not a community quota. The raw material purchasing cap will be assigned to each individual fish processing facility, not to the community. I have to say to the minister and to the Premier: That is true, it is not a community quota, neither is it a plant quota. Each of those harvesters have their individual quotas. It is theirs. Here we are trying to say that it is going to be a plant quota. Mr. Speaker, those people have major concerns about it, and we hear it day in and day out. I think that it is time for the minister and the Premier to sit down and do what they stated they would do in the correspondence that was put out to FFAW, to sit down with all of the stakeholders at the table.

I know the Premier put a letter forward -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BUTLER: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: A short moment to clue up.

MR. BUTLER: To clue up, I just call upon the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier of this Province to sit down with all of the stakeholders and see that this problem comes to a successful conclusion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, too, to present a petition on behalf of fish harvesters in the Province. Rather than read the particular whereas's, it is enough to say that, again: whereupon the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly 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, the most startling thing, I guess - back to the very roots of this - is every time the government tries to explain the rationale as to why they are stubbornly and pigheadedly going ahead, they try to say: We are doing it on the advise of the recommendations of the Dunne Report. I am sure Mr. Dunne, whom I know personally very well - I played recreational slow-pitch softball with him and other things before he retired - he must cringe every time he hears it. He dealt with the issue, just like those before him, and the recommendations said: Sure, you should try Resource Materials Sharing if, and only if, you have the agreement of the harvesters and the processors first.

The Premier finds it very, very funny, Mr. Speaker, as he does with all these very serious issues, making a big joke of it. Here is the issue: Mr. Dunne understood the circumstance -

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been called by the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the comment was just made that I was making light of this. I was having a conversation with the Minister of Finance who made a remark to me, on a completely different topic, a totally different topic, and I responded to him with some laughter. That is uncalled for, you know the difference in that. Again, it is cheap shots again to try and make a point -

MR. GRIMES: Sit down and shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Sit down and shut up! Is that what you just said to me, sit down and shut up? You are the one who is talking about democracy and the right to free speech in this House and everything else, and that is the kind of comment. No wonder you are no longer Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier admits he didn't even have enough interest to be listening to the presentation of the petition. He was speaking to the Finance Minister and laughing and joking about another issue. That is how much interest and concern he has with respect to this particular issue.

The whole point, and the bottom line, is this, after the government received the Dunne Report and said that they accepted it in principle, we said: That is okay, because they won't do Resource Materials Sharing unless they do what Mr. Dunne said, which is go out and get the agreement of the fish harvesters, the plant workers, the union, and make sure that it is done by consent and agreement. They even wrote a letter, Mr. Speaker - they wrote a letter! - under the minister's signature which the Premier said: Oh, that letter doesn't count, because they didn't get it from me. I didn't promise them that there would be a consultation before we did it. He says now: I have made up my mind, they can take it or leave it. The people of the Province remember how everybody in the Province reacted to a federal minister, Mr. Effort, saying, take it or leave it, about something else. It is okay for our Premier to say to the harvesters and the processors: Take it or leave it. I have made up my mind, you can do what you like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Further Petitions?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise today to present a petition on behalf of the harvesters and plant workers in this Province who are calling upon government - I don't need to read it all - to shelve the production quota scheme and only implement it as Eric Dunne said, if and when it is agreed to by the harvesters and the FFAW in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, if you listened to the Minister of Fisheries, you would assume when he talks about the four reports that were commissioned that the four reports recommended that he proceed with production quotas with crab in the manner he is proceeding with them. Mr. Speaker, I say nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact not all the four reports, only one I think, spoke about crab.

The Vardy report was commissioned and dealt with shrimp and shrimp only, the other report that was commissioned, with Les Dean and a group of individuals, was on corporation concentration in the industry, and the final one, Mr. Dunne, did not recommend that the minister proceed the way in which he is proceeding. In fact, Mr. Dunne said, the only way it should proceed is if it were agreed to by all parties, and in particular the harvesters, the FFAW in the Province. So, for the minister to be out trying to convince the people of the Province that what he is saying is true, Mr. Speaker, could not be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, let's face it - and I think the minister understands and realizes this - he is trying now to drive something down the throats of Newfoundlanders, the vast number of people who are involved in the fishing industry, that they do not want driven down their throats. They are not going to accept it, Mr. Speaker. The minister stands, day after day after day, in his dictatorial way and says that they are going to proceed regardless of what the people think.

Outside the House of Assembly this afternoon, he talked about: If we did not implement production quotas, then we would have many more Harbour Bretons on our hands. Well, Mr. Speaker, again I say, the minister does not have a clue what he is talking about, because right now the only plant in this Province, or the only group of plants in this Province that have their own production quotas, is FPI. What happens once you get your production quota? They will do with it just what FPI did with it. They will close Harbour Breton and they will take their quota and they will move it down the road, like they said they were going to move it down the road to Fortune. What happened? What happens now? What happens in Fortune? We heard last week of the 200 people who were promised jobs this year, thirty-eight of them are going to qualify for EI. What happens next year? FPI has already said there is no commitment to next year, so they will take the quota from Fortune and they will move it somewhere else.

I say to the minister, that he should get his facts straight. He should investigate what he is talking about rather than getting on with the tripe that he is getting on with. I am sure that he does not understand the production quota scheme or he would not be behaving in the way in which he is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition as well I want to present to the House of Assembly, and it is from fish harvesters in the Province. I will not read the prayer of the petition, but it is certainly there for people who want to see it. It is regarding the recommendations that are being put forward by the government to have, I guess, production quotas for plants in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have been witnessing here in the last couple of weeks is complete outrage by harvesters in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, simply because they feel they are being gagged by government regulations and being told how their industry should operate without their input being fully considered and taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think government's role in the fishing industry in this Province is to create chaos and create uprising, but it is role in which they should be out there in a conciliatory process, meeting with plant workers, meeting with harvesters, meeting with processors, to try and achieve a balance in this industry, so that we can move forward. You will not move forward with the kind of situation that currently exists in this Province today, where you have a government who has dug their heels in on regulations that are not acceptable to the industry, and that is exactly what has been happening.

Mr. Speaker, not only that, but this whole situation is surrounded by contradictory statements from the Minister of Fisheries on a day-to-day basis. We witnessed that two or three times today, where we had contradictory information regarding the Raw Materials Sharing allocations with processors in the Province, where we had contradictory information with regard to arbitration. Mr. Speaker, how can the harvesters in this Province accept the word of the minister and the government when everything they hear is contradicted from one day to the other?

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about a recommendation that was put forward by a number of authors who have studied the fishery in this Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation in the Dunne report that talked about Raw Material Sharing, talked about it in the context of having an agreement and a buy-in by processors and by harvesters and by plant workers. That is not the case, and that has not occurred. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we have the chaos we have in our fishing industry in this Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: We have communities, whole communities, in this Province, Mr. Speaker, that depend upon this fishing industry in order to survive, and families who depend upon it and plant workers and so on. I think it is ridiculous that the government is acting in the irresponsible manner that they are in handling this particular issue, knowing that it is the very lifeblood of our rural communities in this Province, and knowing full well that a loss of any fishing season could mean the demise of communities and could mean the out-migration of even more families. For those reasons (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 1, Mr. Speaker. I move that This House Approves In General The Budgetary Policy Of The Government, which is commonly referred to as the Budget Speech.

I believe the Opposition concluded yesterday. I think the Member for Trinity North is going to take us to the close of the House business today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to be able to stand in this House and make a few comments about this year's Budget, a Budget that, when we eventually vote in this House, I will, with a great deal of pride, support the motion put forward by our minister to pass this Budget this year in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things, as I have listened fairly attentively over the last few days -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is hearing too much noise across the floor of the House. If the members have conversations, take them outside.

The Chair has recognized the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the excitement created on the other side of the House when I stand to speak and praise this year's Budget.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard a lot about, as I have sat and listened to the debate on the Budget, particularly comments from the opposite side of the House, we have heard individual after individual on the other side of the House stand and criticize this government for not focussing on rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today, as an MHA representing a rural district in this Province, and can tell you that I am proud of this Budget. I am proud of the initiatives of this government.

When I listen to those people on the opposite side criticize our agenda for rural Newfoundland, and talk about the lack of an agenda, and asking questions about where we are going, I could not help but reflect on their period in time. Actually, I went to the archives. It was in the archives because they had been forgotten about, forgotten about by the rest of the Province and forgotten about by members opposite, I say. I pulled out two documents. They are red in colour and they are talking about jobs and growth strategy. This is the crowd on the opposite side who now sit in Opposition, who first got elected in 1989 and finally in September of 1999, ten years later, ten years after they were elected, finally decided that we had a rural Newfoundland. It is called a discussion paper. We have a document here called, an Interim Report on a Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth. On the front page we have a former Premier talking about an initiative undertaken in 1999. Ten years after they got elected they say: we are going to do something about rural Newfoundland.

Here are a couple of things, Mr. Speaker - and I want to remind members opposite when they talk about the time it takes to develop a strategy. As I was reflecting on this document, one of the first things I came across was - here is one of their strategies. In March of 2000, here is what they said: Government will give greater priority and emphasis to small business development in its renewed jobs and growth agenda. Now, powerful words. Do you know what the reality was? The reality was that when this crowd opposite - in 1993, Mr. Speaker, the crowd opposite were putting in some $26 million in this Province into economic development, a provincial investment in the small business for economic development.

Ten years later, Mr. Speaker, when we formed government last year in 2003, when we took over the members opposite were only spending a very meagerly $2 million a year on economic development. They had taken a fund of $26 million, ripped it, depleted it, stripped it and only had $2.6 million a year investing. Now, when we came in with a Budget - and I commend the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development for introducing two new initiatives. When we came in with a plan to invest in a fund - we are going to maintain a $10 million investment fund for small business in Newfoundland and Labrador - the members opposite are critical of it, which is a far cry from their $2 million that they had in 2003. Yet, they talk about our lack of a strategy for rural Newfoundland.

As I read further, here is what they said. Let me read this, on page 12 of this document.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Obviously, I am hitting a nerve.

Now, here is what happens. On page 12 of this same document, in the year 2000, they say that this is one of their priority strategies. They are going to develop a comprehensive natural gas development strategy which will be prepared in consultation with major stakeholders. Now, that is powerful stuff. But when I read this, I rushed right away back to the Library and said this document must exist somewhere. They obviously did it. They said it was a priority. It must exist. Do you know what the Legislative Library told me? No, boy, it is not there. They never did do it. Never did do it.

Then I called my hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources and said: It is probably an internal document. It must exist somewhere in the department. I called my colleague and said: Listen, do they have this policy on natural gas? No, they do not. But, do you know something? When I pick up this year's document on our Budget, look at what the Minister of Natural Resources is proposing to do. He is investing $900,000 this year to develop, and here is what it says: The government has allocated $900,000 to assist government in positioning the energy sector to provide for long-term benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador. What do they do? Sneeze at it. It is not enough. We do not have a strategy. This is what we are doing with it. There is $350,000 going to be used to support the development of a comprehensive energy plan. Another $250,000 is going to be used to undertake a strategic assessment of the possible acquisitions of petroleum interests by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Significant!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, here is the crowd opposite who said, we do not have a plan. They talk about - now, here is what is interesting, Mr. Speaker. They talk about not having a strategic plan for rural Newfoundland, as if rural Newfoundland is some separate creature from the Province as a whole. One of the things we have to remember is when we develop a strategy for rural Newfoundland, it is a component of an overall strategy for the fiscal strength of an entire Province. That is the thing that they have missed. They are asking: Where is your strategy for rural Newfoundland? It is a component, I say, of a larger picture. When we talk about getting our fiscal house in order, when we talk about balancing our Budget, when we talk about bringing our costs in line, these are all a part of a comprehensive provincial plan which automatically forms a part of our rural strategy.

What is even more ironic as I read on, Mr. Speaker, here is what they are talking about here: Government will continue to cut red tape in government. We heard one of our colleagues talk earlier this week about how he chairs a committee looking at the reduction of red tape for business in this Province. The only reason my colleague from Terra Nova is a part of that process and he chairs a committee is because the members opposite did not do it, Mr. Speaker. These are the things that we are doing.

I heard the Member for Grand Bank stand the other day, or while sitting in her seat, criticizing a colleague on this side of the House and asking the question: Did you realize that 2,000 people moved out of Newfoundland since you have been in power? Yes, we realize that. We understand that, but did she realize that we had a net loss of 53,000 from the mid-1990s until the time they left? She did not realize that. Now that is a net loss, Mr. Speaker, and if I start reading the out-migration figures, every figure for every year that they were there (inaudible) a couple of thousand she mentioned the other day. That is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about.

When I started looking at this Budget, Mr. Speaker, when I look at this Budget and look at what it is doing for this Province, a couple of key things. There are a couple key words, Mr. Speaker, that come to my mind. We see the word strategy used frequently. I will just highlight it: the Minister of Natural Resources proposes to deal with a strategy on energy for this Province. I will tell you another sad commentary, Mr. Speaker. When this crowd opposite left government in 2003, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment shared with us recently, that one half of the new entrants to our social assistance roles are people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. A sad commentary on poverty in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, what is in this Budget? She has announced a $200,000 investment in developing a comprehensive strategy to deal with poverty in this Province, Mr. Speaker. When you start talking about a rural strategy, we need to have some of those systemic problems dealt with if we are going to have a strong, vibrant, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot have a rural economy while we are dealing with the kinds of poverty situations that were left by the members opposite when they left power. Strategic thinking, strategic investment.

This Budget is full of strategic investments. We are not adding significantly to our ongoing operating costs, we are talking about strategic investments. We are looking at strategically developing a Vessel Replacement Program. A major issue. Marine transportation, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Island portion of this Province, we have to remember that we are a marine, we are a Maritime province. Marine travel is a significant piece of our infrastructure. We are talking about investing a major piece of work in developing a vessel replacement strategy. Not only does it address the infrastructure needs, but it deals with job creation. We are going to be able to build those vessels in this Province. We have strong, vibrant shipyards in this Province that are capable of building those new vessels for the Province so we do not have to go out and buy rustbuckets at the end of their life and spend millions of dollars on their retrofit. We have a beautiful shipyard in Marystown. We have a great shipyard in Clarenville. We have the capacity, Mr. Speaker, to build our own ships for our marine travel.

Another issue, health care, a significant investment, again strategic. I have to commend the Minister of Health and Community Services and this government for finally, I say, Mr. Speaker, finally making a commitment to deliver to the people of Trinity North a new long-term care facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: One of the things - members of this House will remember, I am certain, and I know the people of Trinity North remember - when the members opposite were in government, in the March 2000 Budget, they said: We are going to start the long-term care facility in Clarenville, and here is $500,000 to do it.

What do they do? They start and stop. Two years went by and not a cent invested. That is the kind of commitment that they made. It was not until a month before the election, the Leader of the Opposition runs in town on a bus and says: I am going to build it now. I am going to have it started tomorrow. Elect me and I will complete it - but, for two years they invested nothing.

I commend this government for following through on their commitment to have this long-term care facility built in Clarenville for the residents of Trinity North. It is not a start-and-stop process, I say, Mr. Speaker. Now we are starting it and we are going to continue it until it is completed and opened, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: On the other issue of health care, we are changing focus, Mr. Speaker. For all too long in this country and in this Province the health system has focused on a cure, treating people when they are not well. This government has made a $2.4 million investment in wellness in this Budget, the largest single investment in a wellness strategy of any government in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker; a significant investment in a new initiative and a new direction for health services. Again, terminology, strategic investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: This is what this Budget is about. You can go down through it: cultural initiatives, our tourism industry. What are we talking about? Investment, strategic investment, building on the strengths of a strong culture, building on the strengths of a Province rich in resources, building on the strengths of the people who are vibrant, intelligent and well educated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Education, again, strategic investment, a continued commitment to post-secondary education.

This year, I say, Mr. Speaker, we are going to increase grants to Memorial University to the tune of $174.4 million, the College of the North Atlantic, $65.5 million, all strategic investments, I say, Mr. Speaker, in the youth of this Province, to continue their education so they can continue to drive and build our economy. Strategic investment, that is the cornerstone and that is the theme of this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Building an economy.

MR. WISEMAN: Building an economy, building a future.

So, those cynics on the opposite side who talk about not having a vision for rural Newfoundland, I say to them, they need to fully realize what are some of the strategic pieces -

MR. JOYCE: Sit down, you fool, boy. Sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that the Chair just heard the hon. Member for Bay of Islands refer to the hon. member opposite as a fool. I ask the member if he would withdraw that comment.

MR. JOYCE: I withdraw that I called the member a fool.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that protection. I appreciate your sensitivity.

Looking at the time, Mr. Speaker, there are many more things I could say about this Budget, and hopefully during this session of the House I will get an opportunity to speak again about the great things this government is doing, the tremendous benefit of this Budget to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On this note, Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, I close my comments and adjourn debate for today.

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.

Before I move the motion to adjourn, I do understand that tomorrow we will be dealing with government business in terms of the Budget, and that will be done by consent and by leave. I thank the hon. members opposite for that opportunity.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that the House adjourn until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 20, at 2:00 o'clock.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

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