April 21, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 15


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon, the Speaker would wish to make a comment relative to a point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition on yesterday to say that the Speaker is very concerned with matters that affect security to members, to officers and staff of the House, as well as security issues within the parliamentary precinct, including the public galleries.

Our Legislature is not a separate entity as is the case in most other jurisdictions. The House of Assembly is part of the Confederation Building complex and thus the parliamentary precinct is part of a shared jurisdiction between the Executive and the Legislative Branches of government.

The lobby of Confederation Building and the security attached thereto is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Works. The Speaker is in the process of drafting a proposed agreement with the Minister of Transportation and Works to have the lobby and the north east entrance become a shared area of jurisdiction. However, this draft proposal has yet to be reviewed by the Executive Branch and has not yet been reviewed by the Internal Economy Commission.

Security within the parliamentary precinct is the mandated responsibility of the Speaker and security issues are reviewed as needed with the Sergeant-at-Arms.

In the past days, the Speaker has held many discussions with personnel from the Department of Works as well as with the leadership of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Extra security has been assigned to the public galleries in addition to the regular services provided by the House Commissionaires. In addition, the Speaker has requested the presence in the parliamentary precinct of one or more members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary at the Inspector rank.

Other security resources are available to the Speaker should the need arise. Security is reviewed each day by the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speaker in consultation with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary leadership. Decisions are made on the basis of adequate preparedness and to a level that satisfies the mandate of the Speaker to adequately address public safety concerns.

The Speaker has been aware of several instances, in recent days, of items being thrown from the public galleries. While most of these breaches of parliamentary and common-sense protocol have occurred while the House has been in recess, these breaches of parliamentary protocol and civil order are nevertheless of equal concern to the Speaker. Visitors must show respect for the House and for its members. Violators, if identified, may face charges in addition to expulsion from the public galleries.

The Speaker is not aware of alcohol being consumed in the galleries or in the nearby public washrooms. However, beer bottle caps have been found in the waiting area just outside the public galleries and the RNC have expressed concerns that some visitors have shown signs of alcoholic consumption. This matter is of great concern to the Speaker and the issue has been referred to the RNC for further investigation.

The Speaker also wishes to address the matter of visitor photo identification. The need for visitor identification in Canadian Parliaments occurs in various manners. In the House of Commons in Ottawa, sections of the galleries are reserved for friends of members, and Members of Parliament will take responsibility for identification and the signing-in process. The area set aside for the public is relatively small and there is a highly trained House of Commons security staff that attend to issues that arise.

In the Quebec National Assembly, the Speaker has a staff of eighty members in the security detail and all visitors to the Assembly must show photo identification. The Speaker may also issue restrictions on the number to be admitted to the public galleries. Students and visitors in the Quebec National Assembly, and visitors from embassies as such, need not show photo identification but arrangements for these visits have to be made in advance.

In the Ontario Legislative Assembly, all visitors must sign an affidavit indicating they know the expectations of Parliament regarding decorum. Should a visitor not follow the expected parliamentary procedures, he or she will be escorted out of the gallery and charges may be laid and the person banned for a limited time from attendance in the gallery.

The Speaker understands the need for an upgraded level of security in the Confederation Building complex. Dialogue is occurring that will provide additional identification to visitors in the public galleries. In addition, decisions will be made regarding exemptions; for example, student groups, tours, seniors, et cetera. Details of these exemptions will be communicated shortly.

The matters raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition regarding new security measures do not constitute a prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege. There has been no direct interference with the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties. The Speaker hopes that his comments will help alleviate some of the concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition. However, the Speaker is always ready to discuss these matters in the privacy of his office.

Finally, the Speaker wishes to comment on the continued disorder that has occurred in the public galleries each sitting day since Monday, April 11. Visitors should respect the rules of Parliament, and when disorder occurs all visitors must respect the authority of the Speaker. This includes any request by the Speaker for visitors to leave the galleries. Parliament must function, and the Speaker must assure that it functions properly. The freedom of visitors to attend in the galleries must not be held at a greater value than the right of members of Parliament to conduct their business. To that end, the Speaker gives notice that should the disorder in the galleries continue, the Speaker will have no choice but to consider the placement of restrictions on visitation in the galleries.

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling yesterday, where you asked the Premier to withdraw comments that he made containing the word, cronies, and the Premier withdraw those remarks. Upon review of Hansard today, I would like to bring to your attention two remarks yesterday that I feel were unparliamentary and would ask that members opposite who used those words that inflamed debate - first, on page 616 of the Hansard of yesterday. I just want to quote, and this is the same example whereby the Premier was asked to withdraw commentary and the Leader of the Opposition - I will just quote his words, "...but the Premier and his particular cronies..." were the words that he used yesterday. That was the exact phrase that the Premier was asked to withdraw from and I would ask that the same standard be applied to all members, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, on page 628 of the same Hansard in Question Period yesterday, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse Clair, in asking a question, said: "Tell me, Minister, is there no bias in this decision, or is this just any example of chaos and the corruption...". Mr. Speaker, anytime that a charge of corruption was leveled against the government, it is my view that either the charge is substantiated, that it be put forward and be judged as such. Corruption implies some sort of activity other than - to me, it implies criminal activity, Mr. Speaker, something that goes towards the notion of what a government should be about. We take exception to that remark. We believe the remark was unparliamentary. We believe it imputes motives on members on this side of the House that do not exist and I would ask you to review those two comments and rule upon them.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In regards to - I see two parts here, two points on. Actually, the first being the issue of whether the Premier did or did not unequivocally withdraw his comments yesterday. I made a submission here in this House that he did not and we have asked that Your Honour rule on that. I think there is a lot of precedent and I would refer Your Honour to the March 23, 2005 edition of Hansard, on page 249, when a person of this House was told that it must be unequivocal. I also refer Your Honour to Hansard of May 19, 2004, when the Chair again, on page 1767, ruled that a withdrawal must be unequivocal. I say to the Government House Leader, that the Premier's withdrawal yesterday was not unequivocal and he should be ordered by the Chair to withdraw those remarks.

With regards to the second issue, I did not catch the page that the Government House Leader referenced in regards to the Leader of the Opposition's comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 616.

MR. PARSONS: Page 616. I will leave that issue to the Leader of the Opposition to respond to but we are still awaiting a ruling from this Chair regarding the Premier's non-withdrawal of his remarks unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of the order raised by the Government House Leader, the Speaker will review the Hansard and he will also look at the video tape to make sure that he gets the tone and the manner of the presentation and make a ruling on tomorrow, and will also make a ruling tomorrow on the other matter raised by the Opposition House Leader as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to raise a point of privilege again today with respect to comments, that I will quote from Hansard, that the Premier of the Province made in this Legislature yesterday which, I believe, does one of two things. It either shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what the rules are for the Parliament that we operate in, or it shows, Mr. Speaker, a total and complete and utter lack of respect for your job in the Chair, and, as a matter of fact, suggests that you are not competently fulfilling your role.

I do appreciate your ruling today and the clarification with respect to your role, your rightful and proper role, in terms of guaranteeing the security of this Legislature and the precincts of the House that you have direct and total control over. I do understand and appreciate the complication that you have addressed and made public with respect to the shared jurisdiction being in a government building, not in a separate premise. I have appreciated, as well, the invitation to address matters like that on an ongoing basis in the future privately with you, which I have started to do and will continue to do as we look to have proper and appropriate security measures in place in the Legislature under your direction as the Chair.

The point of privilege that I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, arises from Hansard yesterday. In the Hansard yesterday the Premier, in speaking to the point of privilege that I raised, and these are his quotes. I have a copy here. I think the page - let's see if it is at the top here. I will find it quickly where the point of privilege was raised.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Sure. Okay.

This was copied earlier, before I took the copy from the Table. The quote is this, in the point of privilege that I raised yesterday, so the Government House Leader can find it readily, I am sure, of the Premier responding. He said, "As Premier of the Province, when I am made aware of something by our Justice officials, by our law enforcement officers, it is incumbent upon me to act." That is true. He goes on to say, "It is not so much to protect myself as to protect the people who work in this House of Assembly." That is not true. That is the point, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to make again in terms of a point of privilege.

When it comes to protecting and taking action to protect the people who work in this House of Assembly, it is not the Premier's role. There is a former Premier sitting here, along with me, who would know full well that the Premier and the government can make the laws for the land but they do not make the laws for the Parliament. We are forty-eight equal members in here, and the person we elect to protect us and decide upon, with our guidance and concurrence, the rules in this House, is the Speaker, not the Premier of the Province. "It is to protect the people who actually are in the House of Assembly.", the Premier said. Remember, it is the context, "... it is incumbent upon me to act."

So what the Premier is saying, by his words, is that Justice officials reported something to him about the Legislature and, rather than go to the Speaker, report it to our Speaker, our collective Speaker, on behalf of the forty-eight of us, and do the kinds of things that you are now in the process of doing, he said, "...it is incumbent upon me to act."

I think that infringes upon our privileges. If we have any one member - because, in here, we are just forty-eight equal members - who suggests that they have the authority or they have the responsibility to take actions in this Legislature about security or anything else, then they either do not understand the role of the Speaker that we have elected, or they are suggesting that the Speaker should be doing something other than what the Speaker is doing, and, by inference, is incapable or incompetent of performing the task for which they have been elected.

The Premier goes on - these are his words, Mr. Speaker, and I will not belabour this because the point, I believe, is crystal clear - and says: I am taking these actions. It is incumbent upon me - listen to the language, not to report it to the Speaker, not to ask the Legislature - it is incumbent upon me to take these actions for the safety of the people in the galleries.

There is no role, I contend, Mr. Speaker, for any one of us, as members in this Chamber, to have a direct role in deciding what goes on in that gallery. That is your job, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us.

Now, we have talked about the issues of getting in here, because we have to come through a public building that the government does control before you get here, but once somebody gets in these galleries, once we get in these seats, once the Clerk sits at the Table, once the Pages come to their job, it is your role, not the Premier of the Province, to protect the safety and make sure order is maintained.

That is a serious breach of the privilege of this House, if the Premier of the Province, as an individual member from the District of Humber West, one of forty-eight equals in this context, would think and believe - because he obviously does, from his words - that he has the right to take action in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon you to protect the integrity of your office and your Chair to clarify that for all of us in the House, to clarify it for the public generally, and to clarify it most certainly for the Premier of the Province who thinks he has greater jurisdiction, abilities and responsibilities inside this Legislature than the law of the land gives him. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, is above the law in this Legislature. We are elected as equal.

Continuing on with the Premier's words, "...for the safety of people in the galleries, the fishermen and other people in the galleries who may be here as observers. This place..." - he was referring to this Legislature - "... has to be secure and has to be protected....." That is what I am doing - "...and that is what this is all about."

Mr. Speaker, if you had made that speech I would fully concur, absolutely concur, but the Premier has no more right to make that speech than I do. The Premier has no more right to make that speech than the Minister of Education does. The Premier has no more right to make that speech than the Member for Windsor-Springdale. The Premier has no more right to make that speech than a person in the gallery.

It needs to be pointed out crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, that is a clear point of privilege when one person walks into this Legislature and tries to take the law into their own hands, even when and where they have absolutely no jurisdiction. Every reference, I am sure, that you will find for every Parliament in the free world will describe it exactly as you know that it should be in this House.

Mr. Speaker, he says it one more time on the next page, and I know that the Government House Leader is following it, "My job, as Premier, is to protect the people of this Province...." - true, I do not disagree. He goes on, "...the people in this building..." - I do not disagree, the rest of the building, and then he says, "...and the people in this House..." - dead wrong. Dead wrong, Mr. Speaker.

If he wants your job, I suggest he resign as Premier and run for Speaker. I am not sure he would get my vote. I would much rather have you as the Speaker than the Premier of the day who thinks he has power and jurisdiction far beyond what even the high office that he holds actually bestows upon him.

I think I have made the point adequately clear, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is incumbent, in terms of protecting the integrity of this House, protecting the integrity of your office, and protecting the integrity of this Parliament, that it be made crystal clear that our Premier is dead wrong in these assumptions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to add a few comments to those of the Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the point made. I wasn't in the House when the statement was made by the Premier, I was in Labrador on other matters, but I do want to say, quite seriously and sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that the importance of the role and right of the Speaker in terms of controlling the precincts of this House and the rights and privileges of members is paramount to that of the government. This is something that was of considerable significance and concern about this time last year, when there was a public sector strike in progress, and even access to this building was being denied to members of this House by virtue of the control over the entrance door by the Department of Public Works and whoever was taking instructions from them.

There was considerable concern raised, and I know shared by the Speaker once the matter was brought to his attention, that we had a significant problem in this House in terms of the Speaker's Office and the Sergeant-at-Arms having control over access to the House. I believe even court authorities were given to distinguish where the House began, for the purposes of an injunction. The matter, in fact, came before the courts for discussion as to what exactly was the precincts of this House and to what extend could access be controlled by the Legislature.

I think it is a very important point. It is not just a matter of debate from a partisan point of view. This is, I would submit, Your Honour, a significant constitutional issue. We do have a situation in this country where there is a separation of powers among the government, the executive branch, the legislative branch where we are sitting, and the judiciary. It is the obligation, I would submit, of you as Speaker, to ensure, along with the support of members of the House, that separation takes place.

The Office of the Speaker is one that goes a very long way back into Parliament. In fact, traditionally the Speaker is dragged, reluctantly supposedly, to the Chair. All of these ceremonies have a point, and the point of dragging the Speaker reluctantly to the Chair was from the olden days of parliamentary government. There was a significant battle many times between the Parliament and the Crown, or the King or the Queen, whoever it happened to be, and the Speaker's safety could potentially be in danger because the Speaker had to rule against the King in return for protecting the privileges of Parliament against the Crown.

This is an example where you are the officer of this Parliament that protects and is supposed to and is elected to be in charge of making the rules here, not anyone else. I will quote the authority that we have referred to many times in the House, that of Marleau and Montpetit, page 262, where it says, "As the arbiter of House proceedings, the Speaker's duty is to preserve order and decorum in the House and to decide any matters of procedure that may arise." And Standing Orders are the guide. There is, as we know, no appeal from the Speaker when it comes to these types of rulings.

When the Speaker is elected, one of the traditions is that the Speaker claims, from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in our case, the rights and privileges of Parliament and is sworn to uphold those. "As regards security..." - again, Marleau and Montpetit, page 254 - "...the Sergeant-at-Arms..."- and this is quite interesting - "...the Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for the protection and security of Members, employees, visitors and property within the parliamentary precincts." This is interesting, "This includes personal security for the Prime Minister..." - and by analogy, the Premier here -"...in the precinct of Parliament, and maintaining order in the Chamber and all the parliamentary buildings."

The Sergeant-at-Arms, of course, we know has ceremonial duties with respect to the Mace and assist the Clerk and all of that. We see these ceremonial functions all the time but it is the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms that is responsible for maintaining order and protection and security as an officer reporting to you as Speaker. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are designed to ensure that it is the Parliament that controls its own proceedings and the Speaker's obligation as guardian of those rights and privileges is the office to whom we look to see these protections taking place.

Again, the overall authority of the Speaker is set forth in Marleau and Montpetit on page 248. "Elected by the Members of the House, the Speaker holds a position of authority and represents the Commons in all its powers, proceedings and dignity. The Speaker is guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, and spokesperson for the House in its relations with the Senate..." - they are talking here about the House of Commons in Ottawa - "...the Sovereign..." - in other words, the Lieutenant-Governor, the King - "...and other authorities outside Parliament..." - and that includes the government - "...when in the Chair, he or she is responsible for regulating debate and preserving order in accordance with the rules of the House."

So, it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is the role of the Speaker and not the role of the Premier. As I say, I was not present when the statements were made and I recognize the quotations made from the Leader of the Opposition. They certainly appear to make it clear that the Premier has, at least, advised this House that he wishes to take over that responsibility. I would have to, with great respect, disagree with him on that and ask Your Honour to assure this House in your ruling, whenever you are able to make it, that it is your authority as Speaker, with the Sergeant-at-Arms's authority, in terms of preserving security in this House and access to this House. This is something that there may be a point of contention, I do not think that the government can control access to this House by controlling access to this building. That has to be something that the House has to make rules concerning.

I would again submit, Your Honour, that these are the kinds of rules that ought not to be made, necessarily, to try and deal with specific instances or complaints or reaction to specific things, except with some deliberation and perhaps with a committee of this House or consultation with members in terms of what rules are deemed to be appropriate in terms of protecting the public, protecting the institution of the House and ensuring that it is the House that has control over this. Because the Premier makes some statement, based on reports that he has received, does not mean that the rules have to be made here very quickly to conform to his statements, and I say that with the greatest of respect because the Premier is certainly entitled to his view as to what are appropriate rules and proper rules. I know there have been debates in public about this, but my point is not about that. My point is about ensuring that the rules are, indeed, made by this House and not by the government and that it is an important constitutional point that we all expect to last, not for this session of the House, but for the life of this Parliament and parliaments to follow. It is for that reason that I think the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a significant one, and deserving of consideration, quite apart of what the rules ought to be, because that is something that - they can vary from time to time, and it may be that other Parliaments should be looked at, to determine what rules they have and what ones we should have, and all of that process has to take place, but it should take place in the confines of this House of Assembly with its procedures, its committees and its traditions, and not by the Minister of Justice or the officials of the Justice Department or police officers or the Chief of Police or whoever is advising the Premier as to what bottle caps are being found or what empty bottles are being found in various places. That is a matter that the government certainly has a right to look into and investigate; but, in terms of the rules of this House, this is something that should take place internally.

I would ask Your Honour, in consideration of that, to take the opportunity to make it extremely clear to the public and to all concerned that, at the end of the day, while members opposite and the government, as Executive Branch, may have an interest and a say in many of these things, that it is the House of Assembly that ultimately decides its own procedures, with Your Honour as the guardian of those privileges of independence, of separate meetings whenever the House determines to meet, and under the rules and procedures that we have laid down with your guidance and instruction.

I know we have had significant problems in this House, but when one looks to the precedents and the rules, there are procedures for dealing with that, and they are internal procedures within the controlled authority of your office, as Speaker, with the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to call on whatever assistance is deemed necessary, but through your office and not through the Premier's office, and not through the office of the Minister of Justice, or any other office of this government.

I know that Your Honour was talking about, in your earlier ruling, a draft agreement about joint control over certain aspects. I think we would be far better served by having a separate entrance to this House of Assembly, with means for visitors to get access to the galleries under the rules and control of the House. The sooner we get to that, the sooner we will avoid the kind of issues that have been raised in this session of the House and this time last year about similar issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

First of all, just a few opening comments to put things in context. Parliamentary privilege is extended to members in their duties as members, not in their duties as Leader of the Opposition, or in my role as Government House Leader and Minister of Natural Resources. Fundamentally, it is about what members inherently - what their inherent rights are, as members.

Parliamentary privilege, in the true sense, if a breach of privilege occurs, the Speaker's role is to decide that, yes, a breach has occurred. If the Speaker decides such, then the matter if put before the House, the forty-eight members, to decide. If a member has breached the privileges of the House, then it is up to the House to decide what the punishment is, not up to the Speaker. I want to be clear on all of that.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, I sat down and listened to everybody in the context of a serious question being put before the House. This is not comedy hour. There is a serious question being put before the House and I would like the opportunity, I say to the Member for Bellevue, to respond, as I listened to everybody else. That is all I am looking for, just a common courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, it also says that in order for a breach of privilege to be established, and this comes from Joseph Maingot - and everybody has copies; I know the Opposition House Leader does - who is the authority on parliamentary privilege in the country - he says, in order for privilege to be established, that there has been a breach, there must be some act that improperly interferes with the member's rights, such as his or her freedom of speech, freedom from civil arrest, the interference - this is an important point - however, must not only obstruct a member in his or her capacity as a member; it must obstruct or allege to obstruct the member in his or her parliamentary work.

It is my view that no obstruction has occurred; because, if it did, what has been absent from the two points made by the Leader of the Opposition, and from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, is the ability to point to a single act where government has interfered with your authority. We have not. In no way, shape or form, has government ever interfered with the authority of the Speaker.

I have been in this House twelve years, as an elected member, and there are always times, or there have been times, where there have been difficult public issues, whether it be the issue facing the fishery today, and government's view on raw material shares, whether it was a public service strike, a nurses' strike, and I believe members opposite would recall another difficult public issue when there was an attempt to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. During those difficult public issues, where there are strong opinions, fundamental disagreements, where people have an interest to come to the gallery and partake in what is happening, situations that have occurred in the past ten or eleven days here have occurred before. I want to point that out; but, in no time, in my experience in the House, have I ever known government to interfere, whether it be the former government or this government, because when it comes to the administration of the government, and the agenda for the government, that is my responsibility as Government House Leader.

I can say unequivocally to anybody who wishes to listen and hear the words, and take them for what they, which is the absolute fact and truth of the matter, is that in no way, shape or form, has this government or myself, on behalf of the government, in my capacity as Government House Leader, ever gone into your office - and you can verify this for yourself, Mr. Speaker, and for all members - to suggest that a course of action should be taken.

I also want to remind the members opposite - and the Speaker will rule in due course - there is no question, the supreme authority in the precincts of the House of Assembly, and in every Legislature across this country, and in every Legislature that operates in a free and open and democratic society, the supreme authority is the Speaker. That is why, when the Speaker makes a ruling, the only way we can challenge his ruling is if we put it by motion, what they call a substantive motion to the House. Otherwise, his rulings are not to be debated.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave with this, a final point. I do not know if anybody heard your opening statement or not, but you said, yourself, in your opening statement, that with respect to the security measures within the House, within the precincts of the House that you have undertaken, that you undertook them. Nobody interfered with you in doing that.

So, I submit, based upon your own comments, government has not interfered in any way, shape or form, with the administration of your authority in the protection of members as we exist as elected members, not in any other roles that we have here, that there is no breach of privilege.

As always, we will leave it to your discretion to advise us and rule upon it and live by your ruling.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a comment, first of all, towards your opening statement, your commentary. I appreciate the information that you have given to us. I think if this discussion today has done anything, not only for some members in the House who probably did not understand the distinction but certainly for the people in the public, the distinction between what happens in the House of Assembly versus what happens in the Confederation Building, your comments in particular about shared jurisdiction, I think it is certainly very educational, if nothing, for the people of this Province to understand that there is a distinction.

Some of the clips yesterday, for example, would suggest that I was some kind of lawless radical because I did not want to comply with the law. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have explained. When it comes to entering the building and putting your card through the scanner, we have all done that for several years and should continue to do that. That is not an issue. Government, like anyone else, has a right to protect and set certain measures of security for the building. My concern, as an elected MHA, has to do with what happens when I come in here, into this House of Assembly.

I appreciate in particular the comments about the consultation. I submit, with respect, that we probably got to this point today because we probably did not have enough consultation. If there are going to be security measures implemented, regardless of whether they are by the Chair or whether they are by the government, as a common courtesy to anyone who might become subject to those measures, there ought to be some information given to people, rather than hearing it word of mouth from people, without any publications being set out, without any notices being given.

So, I am pleased to see that there is now going to be a process established whereby there will be some consultation, and I would certainly recommend to the Speaker that it include members of this House. We have Standing Committees that consider these things and obviously you have to have discussions between the IEC and the Works Department who deal with the protection and security of the building, but certainly the people who live and work in this Chamber ought to have some input into those consultations as well.

I am very pleased, as well, to hear that there are going to be exemptions considered by the Chair. You made reference to people who visit the Chambers with members and so on and you know in advance that these people are coming, whether they be school-age children or seniors or veterans or whatever, and I am pretty certain that you will include in those exemptions MHAs themselves when it comes to what you have to do in security provisions about getting into the confines of this House.

I come back again in comment to the Government House Leader's comment, no one is suggesting here that the Government House Leader had anything to do with trying to influence the security provisions. The comments here are coming about because we had, in this Chamber, utterances from the Premier that has caused the problems. The obstruction - you talk about obstructing members' rights. The problem comes about when the Premier of the Province thinks he is in that chair you are in. That is what causes the first obstruction and that is what we are looking to you for, for a clarification. Once you define and let everybody in this Province know, and in particular everybody in this Chamber know, that it is you and you alone who make the rules about how we conduct ourselves in here and not the Premier. Once that distinction is made known to him, like an ordinary member of this House, that is when we are on the right road, I would suggest, to doing things properly.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Final commentary, Mr. Speaker.

Let me be clear. As Government House Leader, when I say that the Government has not interfered in any way, shape or form or obstructed members' rights, I am not speaking for myself as a member, I am speaking on behalf of the government, which includes the Premier. The Premier has never interfered or obstructed in any way with the corporate rights and privileges of this House. If there is any example where such an obstruction has occurred, I suspect we would be debating it long before now.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point, but that is the whole point of the point of privilege here. The Leader of the Opposition has read for you, let the words speak for themselves as to what the Premier did or did not do here. We do not need the Government House Leader telling you what the Premier did not say. The Leader of the Opposition read for you, as part of today's transcript, what the Premier of this Province said about security in this House. That should speak for itself. We do not need someone else saying he speaks for the Premier. The Premier spoke for himself and that is black on white in this transcript.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the point was made and ought to be considered is that the government, as led by the Premier, has certain control over the building that we are in. I think the suggestion has been made that by issuing instructions to security personnel as to what method of identification is required to enter this building, the government is thereby controlling who may or may not enter this House on any particular occasion. I think that, at that point, it becomes a direct interference with the House's control over its own security and procedures and all of that. I think that is the physical point of interference. The intention, I suppose, was expressed by the Premier in saying it is my duty to do this and that, and I think that is the - obviously, you are reaching a ruling on that but there does come a point of interference once the rules have been set by someone, other than this House, as to who can get in this building.

When we had that experience last year, members of this House could not get into this House. So, we have to look to you, as Speaker, and some committee perhaps of this House, to advise on this. I mean, different Houses have different traditions, and the Opposition House Leader made mention of access of members to the proceedings. We all have picture ID cards that were presented a few years ago and, I think, we were told that we actually had to wear them. No one wears them, as you may know, or very few wear them, and I think that is perhaps appropriate. When you are a Member of the House of Commons, for example, you have a pin that is issued to you, and to you alone, and that allows you access to the precincts of the House as a member. So, every Parliament has different traditions about that. I am glad that Your Honour is looking at those and seeing that members can escort people to the gallery, for example, or the members' gallery. There may be different rules for different aspects of it, but regardless of what the rules are, they are rules that we believe must be in the control of this House.

So, if the government, whether it is the Premier's Office or the Minister of Transportation and Works, or whoever is in charge of the building, telling security personnel, who are not security personnel of this House, that only certain people who produce the right documentation can get into this building, they are therefore controlling who can get into this House. The point is, that control should not be in the hands of the government but should be in the hands of the House. So, we have to overcome that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wish to thank all hon. members on all sides of the House for their presentations. This topic is of particular interest to me. The parliamentary precincts are, of course, the responsibility of the Speaker, and if there is one thing that I have tried to promote since I have assumed this Chair it is a greater definition of what the distinction is between the government and the House of Assembly, between the parliamentary precincts and the rest of the administrative functions of the government, between the legislative on the one hand and the executive on the other.

I welcome all members to join me in my chambers any time to discuss these matters. I have had discussions in the last several days with members on all sides of the House. However, I want to make it quite clear, that there has been no attempt by any member in this House to unduly influence the Speaker. There have been shared views. That is expected. They are done in the Speaker's Office and they are done in privacy. I want to make it quite clear, this Speaker is very independent, has always had that position in his public life, and will continue to have that position. If any attempts were made, it would be of great concern to the Speaker, and the Speaker would have to, at some point or another, communicate that interference to the House itself.

I want to assure all hon. members I will take the matters they have raised very seriously, I will review the transcripts, together with the Hansard, and I will come back in the next session of the House with a commentary on these matters. Please be assured, that while I have consultations with members on all sides, I weigh them and I try to, as best I can, be impartial, be fair and be absolutely independent.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I gave notice yesterday, at the end of the session, that unless there was a satisfactory withdrawal of comments made that were, in fact, untrue and infactual by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, that unless she again made, by the rules of the House, a clear, unequivocal withdrawal of an absolutely false statement that she made, that I would raise a point of privilege today. Mr. Speaker, because that didn't occur, I would like to raise a point of privilege, and the Government House Leader can follow this on pages 631, 639 and 640.

Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, in answering a question with respect to the Status of Women role in dealing with health issues, said, "Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about saving your political hide in the Stephenville area." These are her words. "When the Leader of the Opposition came over, during the election in 2003, and did an official opening of the new Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, when there were no patients and no staff in that hospital, it was nothing but a media ploy to do an official opening. They were in such a hurry to do the opening, they even spelled officially wrong on the sign and did the ‘offical' opening." - and all their members laughed in great glee.

Mr. Speaker, on page 639, I stood on a point of order and said, "That did not occur. I was not in Stephenville for the opening of a hospital. I would ask her, on the basis of the fact that she has made a false statement in this House, if she would now stand, do the honourable thing, and admit that she has told something that was not the truth and withdraw the statement." Again, the point of privilege being, Mr. Speaker, we cannot operate here if we have to accept the statements as being factual, and then completely false statements are going to be made and not clearly withdrawn; then we will never be able to function in this Legislature.

Later in the session, the same member, the minister, stood and said: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point that when the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital was opened in October, 2003, it was the former Minister of Health, Gerald Smith, who did the official opening, and I acknowledge that.

She is acknowledging, Mr. Speaker, that she made a statement that was false. Mr. Speaker, she did not withdraw the statement under the normal rules of his House. You have been asked to rule with respect to the Premier, who has not withdrawn, and the precedent in this House - and I say again, Mr. Speaker, with respect to page 1776, the Chair rules that the withdrawal has to be totally and absolutely unequivocal. With respect to the statement yesterday, the minister made a different statement, never did withdraw the statement that is on page 631.

Mr. Speaker, for the record of this House to be accurate and factual we need to have the withdrawal enforced so that the record will show, when somebody reads these documents in two or three or four or ten years' time, that the statement that was made was, in fact, false. Maybe it is because she did not have the right information. I am not suggesting it was said deliberately, but there was a false statement. There has been no withdrawal. There has been a contradictory statement made, but if someone were to read this now they would read on one page a statement saying the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, opened the hospital, and a few pages later it says: I want to make a point that when the hospital was opened it was the former Minister of Health, Gerald Smith - but there is no withdrawal and retraction or acknowledgement that the first statement was absolutely false, untrue, and that the event which she described yesterday never occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I will not belabour it but it is important to say this: We cannot do our jobs in here with integrity, and function properly as members, if we are not going to follow the same rules consistently. Your Chair, and those who have presided in it before you, have always ruled that the withdrawal has to be totally unequivocal. I have been the result and, I suppose, I have been subject to that ruling several times myself when I got up and tried to withdraw a statement, put some other words around it, and Your Honour would say: No, never mind the other words, just get up and say: I withdraw.

That is unequivocal, and that has been the precedent in this Legislature.

Last year, Mr. Speaker -

MR. E. BYRNE: If it is unparliamentary.

MR. GRIMES: I would suggest to the Government House Leader - he said: If it is unparliamentary. I would certainly suggest to the Government House Leader that a statement that is absolutely untrue, certainly he would agree that is sort of unparliamentary, especially if I am not allowed to use a word like a lie. I am not allowed to say the person is a liar, because that is unparliamentary. He would agree that if the statement is absolutely false then the statement, by its very nature, must be unparliamentary.

Last year, Mr. Speaker - and I will finish with this. I do not think we need to go through the circumstance last year during a public service strike where the Minister of Finance, old conflict of interest himself, suggested falsely in this House that I was involved in secret meetings with Mr. Puddister, and it took him four different days in this House before he finally stood up and acknowledged that was not true and he did the honourable thing and withdrew.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the withdrawal occur, or that some other procedure that you would invoke would make sure that the proper rules are followed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will take the matter under some advisement.

When we make points in this House, the Speaker has always had the position, and it is founded in Beauchesne and it is founded in Marleau and Montpetit, that when members are asked to withdraw their statements they should do so quickly, without commentary and without explanation. That has been the practice, and I do believe that has generally been the precedence of this House. I ask all hon. members, when that occurs, that we should follow the procedures and the practices. I ask all hon. members, in that regard, to do that in the future.

As to what occurred in the matter that is being discussed now between the two members, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Speaker has difficulty ruling on this matter because the matter occurred outside the House and therefore it does not constitute, in the regular sense of the word, a breach of their privileges. Unless the members have disagreements that they can rationalize, the Speaker has difficulty ruling.

I would ask the two honourable members if they could resolve their differences, and if there is clarification to be made I would invite the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to do so now.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, to clarify the issue, yesterday I did indicate in Question Period that the Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as the former Premier, attended the staged opening of the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville during the election of 2003, but I will clarify the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker invited the hon. the minister to make a short commentary, and I would ask her to do that. At the end of it, I would ask her if she would do the correct thing and set the record straight.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I continue - and I would like to clarify this - the hon. member opposite was not at this, I guess, what they call the official opening of the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, but indeed it was the former Minister of Health and Community Services, Gerald Smith, in one of his last days in that capacity, who did the staged opening.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In fairness to all members, I would ask the hon. the minister if she would stand, in that case, and simply use the words that you withdraw the statement that you made yesterday.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the statement, in relation to this matter, that was made yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Under our routine procedures we now move to Statements by Members, and today we have statements as follows: The hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova; and the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for District of Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me the greatest of pleasure to rise in this hon. House today and recognize an outstanding citizen in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, Artie Daye has always been, and continues to be, an active member of the community. For twenty-five years he has been a member of the Kiwanis Club. He worked diligently at the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal. During the Badger flood, he was front and center offering his assistance in any way possible, and through the Red Cross, assists in any such campaigns.

Along with all of these things, Artie is also an active member of the Lions Club. At Christmastime, residents of Grand Falls-Windsor know of his work with the Christmas raffles. The people of the town know that when someone is needed as a volunteer, Artie is the first to be there.

Mr. Speaker, Artie Daye is a person deserving of honourable mention, and in this regard, he has been named Grand Falls-Windsor Citizen of the Year. I would ask all members of this House to join with me in passing along our sincerest congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour five baseball greats from my hometown of Grand Falls-Windsor who have recently been inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Darryl Snow, Rick Lane, Barry Reid, Bruce Andrews and Reg Edwards - all of whom I know personally, I have played with and coached four of them, and know the other one very well - were all honoured this past Thursday night for their outstanding baseball achievements in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, it was a night of memories and celebration and a way to recognize some of the finest baseball players Grand Falls-Windsor has ever seen. The inductees entertained and informed an audience of approximately 100 people, about their experiences playing ball in Grand Falls-Windsor, as well as representing the Province in countless national competitions.

The list of achievements for these great athletes is long. It includes batting titles, six straight Senior B Provincial Championships, and then coaching a lot of up and comers, as they all did. For four of the group, beating the Corner Brook Barons to win the Provincial A crown in 1986 seems to be their baseball highlight, because it is a team sport after all. However, the career highlight for Reg Edwards, a little older, was beating St. John's in 1957 to take home the McCormack trophy, the first time Grand Falls ever won the Senior A Provincial Baseball Championship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating five of Grand Falls-Windsor's finest baseball players, and indeed athletes, on their recent inductions into the Newfoundland and Labrador Baseball Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak today and report on a meeting I participated in yesterday afternoon with the Premier, Minister Dunderdale, Minister Taylor, the MHA for Grand Bank, MHA Foote, government officials, and a representative group from Fortune and surrounding areas.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to participate in this meeting as an individual from the Burin Peninsula. As people have heard me say time and time again, if we are to survive as a region we have to think and act collectively, for in the face of the many challenges that confront us, it is the only way we can survive in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think this was a positive move by government and the Committee, in an effort to assist those affected, and we look forward to some positive moves on behalf of the people of Fortune and therefore the people of the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker had difficulty hearing all of the statement just read by the member. I would ask members to read carefully the instructions when it comes to members statements, that they should not contain matters of political matters. They should be exempted. Members statements are designed to offer congratulations to members' constituents, to welcome people who might be visiting from their district, and other anniversaries or the passing of certain people within the community and that kind of thing.

I also remind all hon. members, when they are addressing other members of the House please use the name of their district or their titles, not their regular surnames or that kind of thing.

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the hard work done by the Trinity Conception Placentia Health Foundation, Chaired by Mr. Don Regular, and the voluntary dialysis committee headed by Ms Joan Gosse.

It is through the hard work and perseverance of volunteers who lobbied and raised money throughout the region that the dialysis unit opened last week at the Carbonear General Hospital.

By this summer, it is expected that this unit will improve the lives of twenty dialysis patients in the Conception Bay North Region. This is a great accomplishment for which we all should be proud. The organization successfully fund-raised the necessary money to allow this project to become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Joan Gosse of the dialysis committee, Mr. Don Regular, Chair of the Trinity-Conception-Placentia Health Foundation, and all the volunteers who helped make this new dialysis unit possible in Conception Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Wilfred Collins of Hare Bay, who passed away on April 12, 2005.

Uncle Wilf, as he was known, was born on October 1, 1912, to Jane and Samuel Collins. He married Estella Minnie Winsor on July 16, 1934, and they raised five boys and three girls. He lived in Hare Bay for most of his life, except for a short stay at Oram's Birchview Manor in Glovertown.

Uncle Wilf began his career working with his father in Three Brooks, Lockyer's Bay, and had contracts for wood cutting and logging for export. After this time, he worked at Indian Bay, wood cutting for Bowaters. Next, he became employed with his father at Terra Nova and Gambo contracting for the A.N.D. Company. He also worked with Abitibi Price as a logging camp Second Hand and a Foreman. Later in his life, he took on the position of Town Manager for the Town of Hare Bay for seven years.

Uncle Wilf served his community well. He was a town councillor. For twenty-seven years he was Secretary of the Library Board, a school board member for a number of years, as well as Secretary of the Salvation Army Men's Fellowship. He was Justice of the Peace for over twenty years until he retired at age ninety from that position. He was also given the Queen's Silver Jubilee Medal.

I would ask all hon. members to join with me in passing on our sincere sympathy to the Collins family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Wabush Volunteer Fire Department.

Earlier this month, they won the 2004-2005 Atlantic Fire Department of the Year Award as selected by Muscular Dystrophy, beating out other departments from Atlantic Canada who have a much larger base.

The selection is based not only on firefighting skill and ability, but also on fundraising and other community activities. The Wabush Fire Department is a very well-trained professional group, and during the course of any year they hold walk-a-thons, food drives, car washes, and provide support to organizations when they have parades.

Mr. Speaker, by capturing the Atlantic Canada Award, they qualify to represent the region against the winners in each of the country's other regions.

Mayor Jim Farrell and the Council of Wabush, Chief Ron Matthews, Fire Chief, is very proud of his twenty-five firefighters for the many unselfish hours that they give. As the Chief says, "We don't volunteer for recognition or honor, but it's a nice feeling when you do get recognized."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Chief Matthews and the Wabush Firefighters, and wish them well in the national competitions where I am sure they will make us all proud.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise all hon. Members of the House of Assembly and the people of the Province that tomorrow, Friday, April 22, is Earth Day. This marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of Earth Day, which is celebrated worldwide as a time to reflect on the importance of preserving and protecting our environment and natural heritage.

Our planet is a precious and fragile place, and Earth Day is a reminder of the essential need for each and every one of us to be responsible stewards of the environment at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, we all must work together to do our part to help ensure a healthy and clean environment for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. Newfoundland and Labrador is fortunate to have so many people all over the Province who are showing their commitment to the environment through a number of activities, such as recycling, cleaning up beaches, planting trees and spreading the environmental message in our school classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, government has undertaken many initiatives to help protect our environment, from introducing new Air Pollution Control Regulations, to organizing and announcing a number of fibre waste diversion and recycling programs, to signing wetlands stewardship agreements with various municipalities.

One of the most challenging environmental issues we are facing today, Mr. Speaker, is climate change, and this government is committed to doing its part to address climate change, which was demonstrated in Budget 2005 with the provision of $300,000 for climate change initiatives.

We have also developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government on climate change initiatives, and we anticipate signing this MOU before the end of this month. As well, we have drafted our own climate change action plan that will also be released very soon.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the sustainable use of our natural environment and resources is also key to protecting our environment for future generations. To this end, as committed in our Blueprint, government has also commenced work on establishing a Sustainable Development Act for the Province.

All of these actions, Mr. Speaker, show very clearly that this government is very serious about the environment and we will continue to take action, whether it is Earth Day or any other day throughout the year, to ensure its protection and conservation.

In recognition of Earth Day, I encourage everybody in the Province to make that extra effort to do something positive for the environment. Our actions, whether they are big or small, do make a difference. Let's use Earth Day to renew our commitment to the environment, as a healthy environment means healthy people, vibrant communities, and a strong and more productive Province for future generations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I too would join with the minister and congratulate all the people and the volunteers involved around Newfoundland and Labrador, tomorrow being Earth Day and all the tremendous work that is being done around this Province. It is too bad we don't have some leadership from the minister in terms of some of the initiatives that should be taken in this Province today. In observance of Earth Day, I would anticipate that he would have been up making some announcements about the waste management strategy and some money to implement that particular plan.

Yesterday, in this House, I indicated that we have a great thing happening on the oil rigs off our coast in terms of the independent monitors with the tremendous major spills that have occurred on our coast that are causing severe damage to our marine life.

Minister, when are you going to join everybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador and have some concern for our environment?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to acknowledge Earth Day tomorrow as an important opportunity to consider how we are treating the environment.

Mr. Speaker, in many respects, governments, including this one, are catching up to where the public is on this issue, because I think the public is far more interested and far more sensitive to environmental issues than governments have been. One of the most significant polluters, for example, in our Province is our very own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which continues to spew hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants into the air in the Holyrood Generating Station. I know some steps have been taken to try to eliminate that, but we are not there yet.

Two years ago, the Kyoto Accord on climate change was ratified by the Government of Canada, yet only in the last few days have we seen any plan from the government for that, and this government hasn't yet released its procedures as to how to do that. We want to see progress, like they have achieved in Nova Scotia, in reducing waste to landfills by 50 per cent and other programs - if I may by leave, Mr. Speaker? I see the Speaker about to rise.

MR. SPEAKER: Is leave granted to the member whose time is up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: I should adopt the procedure before I stand up, asking for leave to continue, as I only have one-half of the last speaker's time.

Another program that I think would be very welcome in this Province, both to the environment and to home owners and occupiers, is a significant program to assist home owners to plan and execute energy efficiency programs in their house. It would save money for heating, it would create many jobs and help the environment as well, and that is a program that I would like to see this government undertake in co-operation with other departments.

This is part of the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Environment is there with a mandate to look after the environment, but other ministers have control over energy, over government services, over housing, over other aspects. They should work together and give this minister a little bit more power to co-ordinate some of these efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in this House over the past few weeks, the Premier has very little respect for the principles of our parliamentary traditions. Last year, the Premier refused to appear before the Estimates Committee for the Department of Business, and answer questions regarding the department, even though he is supposedly the minister. A year later, Mr. Speaker, nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed. The Premier still thinks he is bigger than the parliamentary process and does not have to follow the rules.

I ask the Government House Leader, who said earlier today that when he speaks for the government he speaks for all of government: Why did the Premier once again refuse to appear before the Estimates Committee for the Department of Business yesterday, and refuse to answer questions regarding his much talked about but non-existent Department of Business?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This is an unusual question, in my view. Again, it is just about trying to leave a perception about the Premier of the Province.

The fact of the matter is this: I have never seen, in my twelve years here, and this would include the Leader of the Opposition, when he was former Premier - ever respond to questions directly related to the operations of his office or his responsibilities. Clyde Wells did not do it in this House. Brian Tobin did not do it.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) Minister of Business.

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands.

Brian Tobin did not do it. Beaton Tulk did not do it. Roger Grimes did not do it. Mr. Williams did not do it. As a matter of fact, when we debate Estimates in this House, we debate the Premier's Office, for example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the former Premier, now Leader of the Opposition: Why is he putting out a standard of this Premier that he was not willing to live to himself?

The fact of the matter is, this is routine; it is not something that should concern anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So he does not know why the Premier did not show up.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women responded to questions regarding the Hay report and the decision to remove three recommendations from consideration for Stephenville, the district she happens to represent.

In her response and rationale, she stated that she made the announcements because it was a women's issue. The three issues were: obstetrics - delivering a baby - food services, and moving a closed custody Alzheimer's unit.

I ask the minister: Since when did food services become a women's issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, my first comment is: I want to let the people of Bay St. George know, and the people who have various forms of dementia, they are not in a closed custody unit. They are not in custody; they are in a locked protective unit, but they are not in custody.

Mr. Speaker, we looked at some recommendations in the Hay report. Some had some gender analysis that needed to be done, and there were other issues there that, quite frankly, did not make sense. In saying that, if we look at the patterns of work, and people who do work in dietary kitchens, who work in the kitchens, who are the staff to do that type of work, when you look at that and do a gender analysis, most of those employees are women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, any male who works in the health care system had better watch out; their job is gone.

Mr. Speaker, if she wants to deal with legitimate women's issues for the whole Province instead of just her own district, like she did yesterday, why didn't she remove the same recommendations regarding obstetrics for Port aux Basques, and obstetrics and gynecology for St. Anthony?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about women's issues throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It was in August of last year that I travelled to Coastal Labrador with one of the members opposite, and it was not a political trip. I took time, I met with people in the women's community up there. I have met with health care officials who offer services to women up there.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: To deal with some of the other issues, I understand that Grenfell Regional Health Services, and the Hay report, that the board have thrown out that report and felt that with the new configuration they need to look at services before they make any decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to further add that the people of Port aux Basques will not be treated any differently than the people in Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could interpret the answer so we understand it clearly, she has just announced that the obstetrics services will stay in Port aux Basques. We appreciate that announcement. It is the right thing to do. She has just announced, on behalf of the government, that the Hay report in the Grenfell region does not apply at all, is now scrapped and should be shredded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the announcement yesterday to remove the three Hay report recommendations affecting Stephenville still has not been officially announced by the government. There was no press release from the Acting Minister of Health. There was no press release from the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. There was no announcement from the Premier. There was only a written version of a press release from two private members of the House of Assembly for St. George's-Stephenville East and Port au Port. It did not come from the government officially.

I ask the Acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Can he confirm that this is the policy of his department, that these recommendations are definitely gone, that Port aux Basques will be treated exactly the same way, and that there is no need for the board to further consider the Hay report as it relates to the Grenfell operations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, regardless of how a press release is done, when I stand on my feet in this House of Assembly and I make a statement, and it is a public statement, and I do so in my capacity as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the public of Newfoundland and Labrador can take it as a commitment of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on my left -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on my left and on my right for their co-operation.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the intensity that often accompanies Question Period. I would ask all hon. members, if they have words they want to say to each other, to be taken outside of those Chambers, not in here when Question Period is on. It is consuming time.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a decision of this magnitude must have been discussed in Cabinet. As a matter of fact, the member herself, in her own words yesterday, said: The government looked at those issues and we took them off the Table. So, I am sure that was done by the Cabinet. I am sure the acting minister, the Minister of Finance, the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services was there because he attends meetings even when he is in an obvious conflict of interest. So I am sure he attended this one. Why wasn't this announced I ask, Mr. Speaker, as a decision from the Department of Health? It is apparent that the Minister of Fisheries had very little impact on the discussion or we would have seen the same recommendations announced as being removed from St. Anthony.

I ask the minister: Will he confirm by presenting a Minute of Council or an Order of Council that shows that this decision was taken by the Cabinet and that he participated as the Health Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, for some reason it seems that the member opposite has a problem with the fact that we have decided that some of the recommendations in the Hay report, frankly, do not make sense and do not necessarily meet the needs of women on the West Coast of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable analysis done on this issue. I have attended many consultations, meetings. I have done analysis. I have consulted within government and yesterday, in my capacity as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I spoke to these issues and I make no apologies for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no difficulty with the decision. As a matter of fact, we are pleased. What we have difficulty with, I say to members opposite, is the rationale - which does not make any sense - and the inconsistency, but I am glad today to see that obstetrics are staying in Port aux Basques and that there will be no changes in St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, while the people of Stephenville - and I am glad the minister referenced this before. While the people of Stephenville are relieved that these recommendations were taken off the table, they still have concerns, which they have expressed publicly and will express tonight, that no official announcement has been made. I ask the minister, I ask the Acting Minister of Health, will he provide a written commitment, or better still - actually I should ask it to the Premier because when the Minister of Fisheries gave a written commitment about consultation in the crab sector, the Premier said: They did not get it from me.

I ask the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition now if he could complete his question very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Will he, on behalf of the government, provide in writing a statement to the people in Stephenville that this is a government decision and that it will not change for sure? Because that might not even be any good. Ask the Metis about letters from the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an official announcement, that the services of obstetrics and surgical services will remain at the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the protective care unit will remain at the Bay St. George Long Term Care Centre. The food services will remain in that centre and that the obstetrical and surgical services, at their current levels in Port aux Basques, will also remain. Official statement!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members to my right to permit the Leader of the Opposition to pose his question.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move on to some questions about the crab fishery, and thank the minister and ask her though, later maybe, whether she would like to tell us what Cabinet meeting that decision about Port aux Basques was made or are you flying by the seat of your pants? Show us the minutes because nobody here believes you, I can tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition who was posing a question, I believe, to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I asked yesterday if the Premier had any concerns about his Minister of Finance and that, in fact, he was in conflict of interest since he learned that two of the Finance Minister's brothers are on the Board of Directors of the Association of Seafood Producers, an organization that has lobbied hard for these changes, and, actually, I understand made a presentation to the Cabinet with respect to this. We did not receive an answer yesterday but, instead, we were subjected to a non-related tirade.

I ask the Minister of Finance: In light of this new information for the public, that two of his brothers are right on the board itself, does he still deny being in a potential conflict of interest and does he still feel that he should participate in all future discussions regarding this very sensitive and important issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, now this is the same gentleman that just made the big soliloquy or statement about everyone must tell the truth in this House of Assembly. Now, let me ask him to produce who made such a presentation to Cabinet because I can tell him, no such presentation was ever made. So, when you get to your feet again you can stand and withdraw that and apologize to the Minister of Fisheries and Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to the issue. All week the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The entire week the Leader of the Opposition, beginning last week and all of this week, has been on an intentional smear campaign against a member in this House, when he knows full well that the rules that all Cabinet Ministers operate under, the standards to which we are held, the guidelines by which we govern ourselves with respect to any other outside interests are the very same standards, guidelines, that he and his former Cabinet were held to. We have not diminished. We have not taken away from that, and let me ask the Leader of the Opposition, in all honesty, Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this. If he is such a person who has so high a regard for the truth, why does not he stand and apologize for the intentional smear campaign on a Member of this House of Assembly? Because that is all that is going on, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the Government House Leader, if he wants to come back to this role of asking questions, come on over anytime you want. We ask the questions, you people give the answers.

Mr. Speaker, the question was quite simple. We asked about a conflict of interest and does the minister still plan to sit? He refuses to answer.

Mr. Speaker, another question. There has been much talk in this House by the Premier regarding a lawsuit he plans to launch against me regarding these conflict of interest questions. Yesterday the Government House Leader, during a heated discussion, threatened a similar lawsuit against the Member for Bellevue.

I ask the Premier: Is this a plan of this government to use this intimidation tactic every time they get a question that they do not like?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what planet the Leader of the Opposition is on but it is not the one that contains reality or the truth. First of all, the Premier never did say that he was launching a lawsuit against the Leader of the Opposition. It is factually not correct. He knows it.

With respect that I made some reference to the Member for Bellevue about a lawsuit, Mr. Speaker, please enlighten me because no such reference was ever made by myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members to my right for their co-operation, and I ask the members to my left for their co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he wants me to produce the documents in Hansard, like we have done today, where the Premier talked about a lawsuit, and yesterday.... Both of you will be in the same courtroom, he said to the Member for Bellevue.

Mr. Speaker, there are much more important points like this one. In the House of Assembly on Tuesday, the Minister of Fisheries stated, in reference to the production quota system, these are his words in Hansard, "...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."

I ask the Premier, or the Government House Leader, who says he speaks for everybody in the government: Does he agree with the Minister of Fisheries, that free enterprise should govern the industry and that he is willing to pull back, and are you willing to pull back as well and let this impasse end today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my comments in the House on Tuesday, I guess it was, clearly were to point out that there are two options for government. There are two options for the industry. There is the option of a highly regulated industry that deals with resource sharing, that has issues of corporate concentration dealt with, that has a very rigid Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act that deals with issues such as regional balance and other issues of that nature in a very regulated manner; or, Mr. Speaker, you let the market and free enterprise determine where the fishing industry, as a whole, goes. In the past twenty-five years we have tried to wander down the road in between, and that, Mr. Speaker, is where we ended up today, in between, in no man's land.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to address the fundamental problems in the industry, we can only do it one of two ways. The choice, Mr. Speaker, has to be made at this crossroads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further, in speaking on the same day to a media scrum outside the doors of the Legislature, the Minister of Fisheries finished the statement he made in the House and went on to say that if fish harvesters did not want a production quota system - I do not know why he said if, because he knows they do not - and wanted free enterprise to govern the industry - again, these are his words quoted in The Telegram. His words were: That was fine with me.

If it is fine with the minister responsible, I ask the Government House Leader, who speaks for the Premier and everybody else, why isn't it fine with him and then this could be over?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that it is absolutely fine with me. It was absolutely fine with me -

[Applause from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds visitors in the gallery that they are not to participate or to show approval or disapproval for anything that happens on the floor. You are always welcome in this House; however, you are not to show any approval or disapproval. I ask you for your co-operation.

The Chair does not wish to have visitors asked to leave this Chamber. It is an important part of democracy, and you are welcome here, but you cannot participate in what goes on.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to complete your answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that if why, last year in the shrimp fishery, we tried to bring in an auction, because there is no truer form of free enterprise and market-driven economy than an auction can drive. That, I can tell you, was not welcomed with open arms either. Why? Because people were scared of the implications of a free market, of free enterprise, and how it would impact on communities, and how we could not control the impact that it might have on plants in certain areas, harvesters in certain areas, certain communities, and how, if you get into a market-driven economy totally, you cannot manage the fallout at the end of the day.

That is why governments have interfered in the past. That is why raw material sharing is being promoted now. That is why people have asked over the years for a highly regulated fishery, and that is why we are trying to have that highly regulated fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder why the minister just cannot stand and make a statement or an announcement like the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women did, and take some real leadership and bring this issue to an end.

Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Fisheries obviously does not have the support of 75 per cent of the crab processors in the Province for the production system, does not have the support of the majority, or anywhere close to that, of fish harvesters, and did not consult with the union or its membership like he promised in writing, I might add. He is not following, today, any part of the recommendation he quotes from the Dunne report.

I ask the minister: Now that the Dunne report has no application to this at all, when is he going to withdraw this ill-conceived plan and let the crab fishery start?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will withdraw a plan on Raw Material Sharing, as I have said before, when one of two things happen, when it is either demonstrated that it doesn't work or somebody can demonstrate a suitable alternative. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, neither one of those things has happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he had done the consultation he promised and committed to in writing, he might have gotten the alternative long before now.

Mr. Speaker, in announcing his production quota scheme, the minister said that fishermen shouldn't be concerned about getting a fair price for their crab because he would force processors to open their books. He said it in his public announcement. Last night, in the committee meeting for the Department of Fisheries, a question as simple as how much crab a plant produced last year was refused and denied because of so-called proprietary information.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: How does he expect anyone to believe that he is going to force the processors to put their financial statements on the table if he cannot and is not allowed to answer a simple question like, how much crab did they or will they produce?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we rolled out on March 4, as it relates to disclosure of sales invoices, our intentions to force processors, as a conditional license, to disclose their sales invoices to an independent auditing firm contracted by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Mr. Speaker, that is not dissimilar to the approach that government has taken in providing the production information related to individual operations in this Province to an arbitrator right now to determine production shares.

Mr. Speaker, it is proprietary information and when the Leader of the Opposition was in government, and when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I asked for individual processing information on plants on the Northern Peninsula and they refused to provide it to me because it was proprietary information. We abide by that same policy. However, Mr. Speaker, sales invoices will be forced to be disclosed by producers to an independent auditing firm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In order to ensure that the members of the New Democratic Party have equal opportunity, we are at the stage now where I must transfer to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture regarding the disastrous plan to provide plant quotas to processors.

Yesterday we saw representatives of Quinlan Brothers, one of the largest buyers, say that they no longer needed to have a relationship with fish harvesters whereby they supply bait, extend credit, supply fuel, because they are going to get the quota and the raw material anyway. All of these things are absolutely necessary for fish harvesters to operate their enterprises. Will the minister now admit that his plan will not only shift the bargaining power in collective bargaining to processors but also see fish harvesters thrown to the wolves when it comes to operating their enterprises and getting the means whereby to be able to do that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, politics in Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed an interesting spot. When you have the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland and Labrador championing market forces and free enterprises determining what happens in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an ironic day.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would remind visitors in the gallery that the Speaker cannot tolerate further disruptions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that we have no fisheries loan board. He knows that at least now when - although they may be dependent upon individual processors, that they at least have the right to go somewhere else if they do not like what they are getting. He is taking away that right. Will he acknowledge that is one of the big failings of this program and go back to the drawing board, sit down with the fish harvesters, and come up with a decent plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is incorrect. There is a Fisheries vessel Loan Guarantee Program that every individual in this Province can avail of, every fishing enterprise in this Province can avail of if they have the suitable finances.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I tell you, if they do not know where it is, Mr. Speaker - and I know I am not supposed to respond to the gallery, but if they do not know where it is, it is only to contact the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and it is easily found out.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what. The reason why that program is not availed of is because processors in this Province, and fishermen in this Province working with them, have seen a vast majority of the vessels and the licences in this Province bought up under the Administration that is sitting across the floor here right now. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is stop that from continuing and stop what we have now, where 50 per cent of the crab production in this Province is controlled by four processors. That happened under their watch, as I said yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Time for a very brief question and a very brief reply.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Acting Minister of Health, concerning the provincial drug prescription plan.

I want to ask the minister; given the two sheets I have here, which covers every jurisdiction in this country, every other jurisdiction covers drugs from a co-share plan, many of them with 2 per cent of income, depending on the costs - some of them exempt, RRSPs and children's education funds, which our Province does not. Why is it, I ask the minister, that people in our Province have to put themselves in poverty in order to purchase drugs they need to treat serious illnesses? Why aren't we a part of the national standard of this country? Why should we accept less than other provinces provide for their residents?

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

About twenty seconds for a reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions he asked the last day: every province has not added aricept. There is one which has not, it is looking at it. The expert advisory committee - I indicated that to him before. When he reported in 2003, it was based on three aspects. There were three aspects to it. Since that, new clinical evidence, I indicated, has come forward. It is the AD2000 study that was published in Lancet 2004, and an epidemiological group at Memorial have confirmed, for example, one of these drugs have indicated that it does not delay institutionalization and there is a minimally relevant benefit arising from that particular case.

MR. SPEAKER: Time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

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

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

I just noticed that, for the purposes of today, once we get to Orders of the Day where we are proceeding with the Budget Debate, I believe there is something wrong with the Order Paper today. It starts at Motion 7. There are no Motions 1-6, and the motion that we would be debating today would be Motion 1, which is the Budgetary motion or what is commonly referred to as the Budget Debate.

I am going to have to take my leave shortly because I have an engagement to go to. My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, will assume, obviously, the role as Government House Leader. So, when he stands up and moves the motion, he will be moving Motion 1, which we all acknowledge, I would think, because of the absence on the Order Paper. I just want to ensure that is clear because, you know, it is not clear on the Order Paper today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair apologizes for the error. I have to compliment our staff, they rarely make errors. I think this is the second one that has been made in the last two years. We apologize for them and we ask members for their co-operation so we can call the appropriate motion.

The Chair was calling, Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Chair of the Resource Committee, I am pleased today to submit my report on behalf of the Committee.

The Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: Department of Business; Department of Environment and Conservation; Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; Department of Natural Resources; the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and the Labrador affairs segment of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take the opportunity at this time to thank the ministers and their departmental staff, as well as the members of the committee and the Members of the House of Assembly staff.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

As Speaker of the House of Assembly, and in compliance with the responsibilities attached to the Speaker's office, and in compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am submitting to the House the report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for the month of March, 2005.

Further Tabling of Documents.

Notice of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that promotion.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the Municipalities Act, 1999 and the St. John's Assessment Act," Bill 15.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation," Bill 17.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, again today, rise with a petition on behalf of the plant production quotas, a petition that I have received from harvesters, not only in my area, but throughout various areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making a comment that when I was on the way back to the building today I happened to have a CD on, and they were singing this song. It says: They are crying out for peace around the world. Why won't they listen to the children?

I say, Mr. Speaker, the union and the harvesters of this Province are crying out to this government. I say, why won't they listen to the harvesters, the plant workers and the processors? Mr. Speaker, those individuals we hear from on a daily basis throughout this Province believe that they are going to lose their rights. They know that the quotas are in their names.

I read the other day, with great interest, from a fisherman - I think it was on the Northern Peninsula - when he said they may still own the quotas -

[Disturbance from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, he was saying that they may - when he said they, he was referencing the harvesters - own the quotas but the processors will own the harvesters.

That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, because those individuals have worked very hard to get to the point they have reached today.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to meetings that I have attended, listening to my fellow colleagues on this side of the House when they present petitions, and I know, I am sure, members on the other side are getting the same feedback in their districts from their constituents as we are. Mr. Speaker, I say to them, I plead with them to stand. I know the people out in the Province are sending a message loud and clear, and I think we, as members in this House, have to send a message loud and clear. I know colleagues on the other side who, in neighbouring districts to mine, are getting the same message that I am getting. If they are fearful of standing on their feet on that side and making their views known, Mr. Speaker, there is a big open space over here on this side. The rent is fairly cheap, but I say it is not as cheap as the silence that we are hearing. I think it is unfortunate that people cannot speak themselves in this hon. House, on behalf of the constituents they represent, to get this message across.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Premier say the other day that the livelihood is in turmoil, because of the situation in this industry, for a lot of people in this Province. He said, I have a responsibility to protect the people in the House and the Province.

I say to the Premier and to the Minister of Fisheries, they have a tremendous responsibility to deal with the crisis in the fishing industry today and to get back to the table. They are looking for options, and I am sure if they sat down with the FFAW, with the harvesters, the plant workers, and all those involved in the industry, Mr. Speaker, that they can come to some kind of a successful conclusion to this problem. People are hurting, not only the people in the fishing industry but other businesses in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people on the Burin Peninsula, and the prayer of the petition says:

WHEREAS the need for a CT scanner and a dialysis unit has been clearly identified and demonstrated on the Burin Peninsula; and

WHEREAS this need has been recognized by all residents of the Burin Peninsula who have given generously toward the acquisition of those services; and

WHEREAS the CT scanner and dialysis unit are now considered standard service at all regional hospitals; and

WHEREAS those services will significantly improve the delivery of quality health care services on the Burin Peninsula;

WHEREUPON the citizens of Grand Bank and Fortune and surrounding communities call upon the provincial government to make the provision of a CT scanner and a dialysis unit a health care priority for the Burin Regional Hospital and allocate funding for those services.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress strongly enough the importance of this petition. We had hoped, of course, that the government would recognize the need for these two services for the Burin Peninsula in their last Budget; but, of course, they did not.

Having watched what took place in the House today, I am again calling on the Member for Burin-Placentia West to speak to one of his colleagues, whether it is the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, who has been popping up here today with official announcements on behalf of the government - I can only imagine that the Premier must be sitting and watching what happened today in the House and just shake his head, because I have never seen government run so haphazardly. You wonder who is going to pop up with a decision, so today I am asking somebody over there to pop up and say: Yes, we are going to put a CT scanner and a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.

I am going to again call upon the Member for Burin-Placentia West to exert his influence, if he has any at all, to stand up and announce a CT scanner and a dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula. If the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East can do it, why can't he do it? Certainly he must have the Premier's ear, or the ear of the Acting Minister of Health, who is also the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; but then, of course, we do not know who would have to approve it.

I am calling on the member again. He was eager to get up and do a member's statement on a meeting that I convened on behalf of my constituents. I would ask that he now stand up and announced a CT scanner and a dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula. I know he might find it funny, because he is laughing, but I am not sure that he takes this seriously enough. I would like for the government to take this seriously. This issue is of utmost importance to the people on the Burin Peninsula. To have to travel over treacherous roads to go to Clarenville to access a CT scanner, and then to have people have to leave their homes and move away from the Burin Peninsula to have access to dialysis services is totally uncalled for in this day in age. I would ask the government to really be considerate of the needs of the people on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, the petition I have today has been signed by residents of Grand Bank and Fortune, but I can tell you that other communities in my district and throughout the Burin Peninsula are calling on this government to really stand up, take notice and make the announcement, and pop up and make an announcement about this, like they have done with others today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the three minutes allotted to present another petition with respect to the crab harvesting issue that is before the people of the Province today. This particular petition, again from fish harvesters and their families from several different communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, I will present to the Table.

Mr. Speaker, the strangest kinds of things are happening around this issue, in this Legislature, where you have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture saying: It is okay by me, it is fine by me, I will gladly take this off the table - but it is not off the table. Then, in the meantime, outside the House, in other commentary, he acted very much like, I guess, some people I dealt with - I mentioned baseball players earlier today, that we played with when we were very young, and somebody always had the good privilege and pleasure of owning the bat and the ball. The minister, outside the House, though unfortunately, a couple of days ago, acted like the person who did not like the way the game was going, and sometimes they would say: I don't like the way this game is going, so I am going to take my bat and ball and go home.

He acted like that outside the Legislature a couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, when he said: If I don't get my way with respect to these crab quotas, don't ask me to do anything else for any other fishing community, or deal with any other fishery issue in the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is tantamount to saying, as the minister, that I quit. If I do not get my way on this issue, I will quit.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, from what I have seen, there does not seem to be any lack of resolve from the fish harvesters. There seems to be a weakening of any unified front from the fish processors. The biggest one does not want anything to do with this. The biggest processor - very telling - the biggest processor in the whole entire Province does not want anything to do with this new system. The harvesters do not want anything to do with this new system, and these petitioners, Mr. Speaker, are saying: Please take it off the table. Come back and do the consultation that you promised us in writing. The minister's response is: Well, if I do not get my way I will quit, and don't ask me; don't you people dare ask me to deal with any other fisheries issue.

He mentioned communities like Fortune and Harbour Breton. What is he going to do, quit the IAS committee in Harbour Breton if these quotas do not go through? There is no crab in Harbour Breton. Crab has nothing to do with Harbour Breton. Crab has nothing to do with Fortune. Why would the Minister of Fisheries stand up and say: if this quota system does not go through, don't ask me to do anything in Harbour Breton? What kind of an approach is that? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it was tantamount, basically, to resigning because he said: I will quit if I do not get my way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There will be lots of other opportunities to present other similar petitions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of crab harvesters and plant workers in the Province who are calling upon government to take this production quota scheme off the table and only implement it as was recommended in the Dunne report, by Eric Dunne, if, and only when the harvesters in this Province and the FFAW agree to implement them.

Mr. Speaker, since this episode concerning production quotas has been put on the table by the minister some three or four weeks ago, I have been searching my own mind and researching why the minister would be doing it. Because I can remember when the roles were changed and I was a Minister of Fisheries sitting on that side of the floor and he was over here, I heard him many times talk about how proud he was to be a fisherman. He talked about what it was like to be up fishing off the Cape, 200 miles off the Cape in forty-knot winds, and how proud he was to be a fisherman and how much he understood what the harvesters of this Province were going through. I have also heard him talk about how proud he was to be a member of the FFAW. He went further then that, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say how proud he was to be an employee of the FFAW as he was on the West Coast, how he worked diligently for the FFAW and how proud he was to do it.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at his resume today, if you look on the Web page today, under the Minister of Fisheries, they will give you a little story about the minister. All through it he talks about his accomplishments when he was an employee of the FFAW. I scratch my head and I say: What has transpired in the short walk from here to right there that this same individual, who was proud to be a harvester, has turned his back, totally, totally, I say, on the harvesters of this Province and will not even talk to them? He wants to push this production quota system down their throats because the processors want it. They have met with him, believe me. The processors have met with him, and the committee of the processors have met with him. They have put the plan on the table. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have even put their percentages that they want of the total allowable catch of crab this year on the table, because they did it with me.

Mr. Speaker, I, having been a school teacher and became the Minister of Fisheries, always thought that maybe some day if this current minister ever became minister he might do something for the fish harvesters of the Province more than I could do for them. Mr. Speaker, I was sadly mistaken because when I was the Minister of Fisheries, even though I was a simple teacher, I said to the processors of this Province: You will never get production quotas until the FFAW and the harvesters of this Province agree to it. Now, today to see a fisherman himself stand in the House of Assembly and say you are going to have production quotas whether or not you want them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and having come out (inaudible) I say to him, you are nothing but a disgrace!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition on behalf of over 200 people on the Burin Peninsula, people on the Burin Peninsula who are very, very concerned about the health care on the Burin Peninsula, particularly as it applies to the long-term care facility for Grand Bank.

As people are well aware, the facility in Grand Bank now is an old facility. We have seniors who are in very, very poor conditions in terms of the kind of conditions that they have to live in and stay and spend the last days of their lives. The people on the Burin Peninsula are very, very concerned about this government and are concerned for our senior citizens.

People are well aware of the Burin Peninsula and the traditions and the occupations on the Burin Peninsula. Most of these residents, within this long-term care facility in Grand Bank, are retired former deep-sea fishermen who went through a very, very tremendous, difficult life with great hardships. Now, in their later years, this government finds money that they can bring RNC officers into the House of Assembly when it is not necessary, provide all these other kinds of expenditures that really are not necessary, and you are saying to a resident of Grand Bank or Burin or Grand Le Pierre or Terrenceville, and these senior citizens, that you have to uproot and go to St. John's; go into a seniors' facility in St. John's away from their family, away from their friends.

I guess those of us who represent the Burin Peninsula are going to have to do the same thing as the people in Stephenville did. We are going to have to get the Marystown arena, I guess. We are going to have to get everybody on the Burin Peninsula into the Marystown arena and invite the Premier and the Minister of Health to the Burin Peninsula to see what will happen because the only action you seem to get from this particular government is if you embarrass the government.

When the Premier was going to go over to Corner Brook last year for a golf tournament to raise money for the PC Party and he got word that the VON workers were going to blockade and protest the golf tournament, his glorious golf tournament, he came on the radio immediately and gave the money; came up with the money immediately to settle the dispute at the VON.

When we found out that 1,000 people were going to go out to Stephenville tonight and protest, the member - we still do not know if it is a government policy or not because the Parliamentary Secretary or the Acting Minister of Health has not gotten on their feet and said it is government policy. So, we really do not know.

We all know what happened with the Minister of Fisheries who sent out a letter and then the Premier said: Oh, that's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. WISEMAN: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

I am sorry. The Member for Trinity North is not in his seat, therefore has no authority to deny leave. Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Conception Bay North and from rural areas of this Province. The prayer of the petition basically goes:

WHEREAS government recently announced it would be closing thirteen highway depots and laying off permanent employees in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador this spring, despite serious problems with highway safety and infrastructure; and

WHEREAS Premier Williams promised NAPE and the public that there would be no layoffs in the public service, and the Minister of Transportation and Works stated in the House of Assembly that there would be no depot closures; and

WHEREAS government cuts over the past two years have meant a serious degradation of services in rural areas of the Province, especially in Conception Bay North and, I have to say, my neighbouring District of Trinity-Bay de Verde as well;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon your House of Assembly to urge government to re-evaluate its plan to release permanent workers who have worked year-round to provide road maintenance and to budget additional funding for essential workers.

Mr. Speaker, anyone on the Avalon Peninsula who has driven over the highways of this Province, and anyone from the whole Province who has driven over the highways, cannot believe government's measures to close thirteen depots in this Province.

The minister stated a while ago that he was not closing any depots. Well, I ask the minister what the difference is with a depot with nobody there, no workers operating from it? What purpose will it serve? We have another empty building - not capable of going out in the nighttime and fixing a pothole, not capable of putting a line on the road, not capable of fixing a stop sign, not capable of responding to a flooded ditch.

Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland is suffering. We are struggling daily, the people in rural Newfoundland. I live in rural Newfoundland myself, and we are struggling daily to keep cars on the road. We are faced with the high cost of gasoline in this Province, that the government sits idly by and does nothing with. We are faced with the cost of insurance in this Province that keeps going up on a daily basis. Now, on top of all of this, we have depots closing so that our cars will further be destroyed.

There are many, many people who commute from Trinity-Bay de Verde and from Conception Bay North, from own District of Carbonear, Salmon Cove, Victoria and those areas, coming from Bay Roberts and up through the Bay, who come in to St. Johns' every day to earn a living.

It is very difficult, when you are wrestling with the ruts and the potholes that are out there, and in some cases it is beyond potholes; they are craters. It is just inconceivable that we could close down depots in this Province and let people go home, long-serving people of this Province who have served this Province in all kinds of conditions out there on our highways trying to keep us safe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: A few seconds or so, to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to clue up has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to reconsider this. I ask somebody to pop up over there now and say we are going to keep those depots open.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: I ask security to escort this gentleman out of the gallery.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. TAYLOR: You might make a good fisherman one of these days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: There's respect for you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

 

MR. RIDEOUT: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, in the last several days, as everyone knows, there have been disturbances and disruptions in the gallery, and you have admonished and reminded the people who are visitors to the gallery of what the rules of conduct are. You have also reminded us, as Members of the House of Assembly, what the rules for conduct are.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you, like the rest of us, just heard the Minister of Fisheries engaging from a seat in the Legislature, and basically showing disrespect for a member in the gallery by saying: Some day you might make a good fisherman.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you know it is improper. It is just as improper for us to speak to people in the gallery as it is for people in the gallery to speak in the Legislature at all, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you make that clear and remind the Minister of Fisheries so that conduct which can provoke responses from the gallery does not happen in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order that has been raised, all members will know that it is against the parliamentary rules for members to dialogue, either directly or indirectly, with visitors in the gallery. That has been a long-established rule. It is in all of the Houses. All members on the floor, it is a two-way event. People who are visiting the gallery are not to participate in events that are happening on the floor of the House. Likewise, members who are on the floor of the House should not engage people who are in the gallery.

I ask all members for their co-operation. They should not point to visitors in the gallery. They should not dialogue with them. This has been the long-established practice, and I ask all members for their co-operation.

The Acting Government House Leader, Orders of the Day.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 is the Budgetary Speech.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It gives me great pleasure today to speak to this motion. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am going to be speaking in favour of it. As I look at it, I have to say that I do not share the Premier's feelings, as he read it coming back on a flight to St. John's one night when he got on Open Line and said how he read his Budget and he was so delighted with it that he was trying to pat himself on the back for the Budget being such a great Budget.

I do not share those feelings, and a lot of people around this Province do not share those feelings. When I think about the things that happened during the time period that Budget was being put together, when I think about Mildred and Clovia Baker in Carbonear having five hours of home care taken from them at a time when they needed it most, two very fine, loving, caring ladies, a mother and daughter who are restricted to wheelchairs and breathing apparatus, this Budget did not allow for any home care for them. This government saw fit, at a time of their greatest needs, to take away five hours of care for them.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons. You know, when those ladies are unable to answer a door or turn up a thermostat in their home without somebody coming from next door, I find that totally unacceptable. I keep hoping, and I hope that Minister Responsible for the Status of Women will look at these two ladies and the plight that they are suffering right now. I hope that she takes it in the goodness of her heart to pop up tomorrow or on Friday or on Saturday or Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday of next week and say to me, as the member who represents these two ladies, that she is going to interact with her government and find the five hours of home care that these people have lost; thirty-five hours a week of home care, Mr. Speaker, and the misery and suffering that these people are enduring because of that.

I have dealt with two ministers - three, actually: the first minister who was there, who resigned because she did not see fit to serve under the Premier as minister; the second minister who came there, who is off now on sick leave; and the third minister, who has since moved on. He is not acting minister any more. Two letters back, and the only difference in the two letters saying how the department had reviewed their cases, the only difference with the two letters, was the second letter from the acting minister saying that maybe if this is not good enough, that the family can find alternate means of care for these two ladies.

Do you know what that alternate care was? Put them in a home, take them out of their family home, a mother and daughter, and because of the lack of accommodations in their area in long-term care, quite possibly split them up, split up a family and take them and put them in an institution. Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am about, as an individual or as a member who represents those people. I don't think it is about what Newfoundland and Labrador is made of. I think the fiber of this Province is much better than that, that these people should have to be subjected to being taken out and put into an institution and separated, a mother and a sibling. Mr. Speaker, that is just one incident.

I have another lady in Harbour Grace, a single mother. I am glad the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women has taken such a great interest in women this week and reacted to things in the Budget and changed the Budget, because I have a single mother in Harbour Grace who has a son who has medical needs. That mother was involved in an accident and she received an insurance settlement. By the time she had settled and received her cash and paid back the family members, paid her legal costs, and paid back her friends and neighbors who helped her during her situation, she had lost her social assistance. She is getting forty-three dollars to live on, just forty-three dollars. That is not what I would vote in favour of in this Budget.

The other day I had to raise an issue here in this House of Assembly about the medical control officer at the Carbonear General Hospital leaving his position. At twelve o'clock on Tuesday evening there would be no medical control officer to give directions to the ambulance operators of the Trinity-Conception area. I can't vote in favour of a Budget that would propose such things, to see such things happen, when people's lives are put at risk and there is nobody there to tell an ambulance attendant if they should defib somebody or give an IV or apply oxygen. Those are the things that upset me about this Budget.

There are situations out there where people who are sick and travelling to hospitals, are having to travel to St. John's either by their own means or by public taxi, getting to St. John's to get some tests done. An individual called me yesterday, a man from Salmon Cove, crying that he cannot afford to make his four trips to St. John's because of how long it takes to get funding from the government to be reimbursed for his costs; totally unsatisfactory. Thirty-six dollars is all he was getting for him to go to St. John's to have gas and meals while he was in having tests done and seeing specialists. Unfortunately, between him and his wife they need four more trips and are frightened to death that they cannot get the money together to get in and out. These are the things that upset me. These are the little things in a multi-million dollar budget. These are the little things.

There are also warning signs. There are warning signs of things that are going to happen and are happening to rural Newfoundland. You know, every day we get an increase in our driver's license fee, or license for our car, a moose license. Increase! Increase! Increase! The cost of groceries are going up, the cost of is gasoline going up, but everything else stays fixed. Even the oil companies the other day, just for perception sake, rolled back the price of gasoline because they did not like the perception of it being up over $1 a litre.

It is the ordinary person out there that this government has lost sight of, the ordinary person, the person who has to go to work in a crab plant and make a living in the few short months they get. That is the person who is suffering. They are on a fixed income once they get there. The people who are out there in other parts of the Province who are trying o survive on a grant, on a make-work project, they are not getting anything. There is little consolation in working for 420 hours and finding out on your first EI cheque that you get $97 a week, and that is what you are expected to feed your family on. You have to be a miracle worker, I say to the Speaker. If this government expects $97 a week to feed a family anywhere in this Province, whether it is in rural Newfoundland or if it is in urban St. John's here - you certainly cannot do it on that kind of money.

We have the NAPE president now, Mr. Puddester, he and the membership of NAPE have launched a campaign, they have recognized the seriousness of what is happening in this Province. He has launched a campaign to save jobs in rural Newfoundland, to stop the downgrading of the public service outside the venue of this great city, because that is where everything seems to be happening. If you are lucky enough to live in this city, or lucky enough to live in Corner Brook, everything is fine, but everywhere else in this Province we are being nickelled-and-dimed to death, we are losing this position or that position.

It is quickly going to come that the office of Human Resources, Labour and Employment in Carbonear will be downgraded. The income-support officers will either be laid off or transferred to St. John's.

You know, it is constant. It is all the little undertows, a job today, another job tomorrow, but these are all jobs that are very, very important to rural Newfoundland. I say, Mr. Speaker, a job with the government, regardless of what it is, means a steady pay-cheque fifty-two weeks of the year, and people have come to know how to live on that. Mr. Speaker, you are from rural Newfoundland, you understand how that works. A little government cheque, even the smallest one - it does not have to be a deputy minister's position - that has an impact on the community. It has an impact on probably the only store in that community, where somebody does down to buy a can of milk.

I bet the Premier doesn't even know what a can of milk costs, a can of Carnation milk. I don't say he would even know what it was. I don't say that he knows if it is on sale or where it is on sale. Let me tell you, the people out there in rural Newfoundland know what is on sale at Sobey's. I know in my district, they go from Carbonear to Bay Roberts and the people in Bay Roberts go from Bay Roberts to Carbonear, back and forth, looking for the specials, because they realize how hard it is to make a dollar and they also realize how very, very important it is, and hard it is, to make a dollar in rural Newfoundland.

That is why, when I see the crab fishermen, the fisherpeople, of this Province protesting what is happening with the government right now - because they all remember, Mr. Speaker, what it was like thirty-five or forty or fifty years ago in this Province, where a barrel of flour meant surviving the winter. No matter how much fish you caught, you were still trying to balance the odds with the merchant. That is what these people are afraid of. That is why when I see them upset, I respect what they are trying to do. They are fighting for themselves and their families. They are fighting for their enterprise to keep their families alive.

That is what we should be about, Mr. Speaker, as politicians. We should be champions of the people who put us here in this House. That is what we should be, champions for those people. We have reached the point you know where - I have watched over the last little while where the Premier gets up and makes an announcement. He says: How I am going to defend and protect the people in this House. Well, it is not his job, it belongs to the Speaker. We elected the Speaker to do that.

I thought that this Budget would be creative, there would be nice things in this Budget that would help the people of this Province who have substance dependancy problems. I thought maybe somebody would come in and say: Well, I think a good idea now that we have closed Salmonier Line correction centre, that we have closed down the centre out in Salmonier, instead of trying to sell that off as a golf course in a year two down the road, the Salmonier correction centre, because of its location and everything else, would make a great treatment centre for people who are suffering from substance abuse and trying to beat that particular problem. Now, that would be creative.

Another thing that should have been in this Budget would be a school, the new school for Carbonear that the new school board has recognized should be out there. That should be put there; or even the one in Placentia. You know, we have to speak. We find ourselves, members on this side of the House, having to speak for the people of other districts because of the atmosphere that is going on within government. If you speak up, you are gone, you are bounced, you are trounced, outside. We have to. It is important that we look after the needs of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look at the long-term care facility that has been announced in Corner Brook and the roller coaster ride that is going on there. I am happy that Corner Brook is getting their long-term care facility, but I am as much disappointed the other way that there was not one announced for Carbonear. I happen to know that the officials of the Department of Health and Community Services evaluated the long-term care needs of my district and it was deemed to be equally important as the one in Corner Brook. The problems with long-term care were equally important as anywhere else in this Province, more important actually, the study said. There is a study in the Department of Health to verify that. I am only hoping that some member on the other side some day will pop up and say: We are going to give the long-term care facility in Carbonear a shot. We are going to announce the engineering. I do not think that is going to happen because the people in the Carbonear-Harbour Grace-Conception Bay North area, they have not rallied yet. They have not rallied and started protesting and started asking for meetings with ministers, but they will, I can guarantee you that. That day is coming, because sooner or later the women of my district are going to say: Well, I am a woman too and the minister is not representing me. How come? What about the seniors?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the minister of innovation, trade and rural destruction, if she has something to say, don't go degrading the women of my district. Stand up and say it. You will have your opportunity; you stand up and say it. Do not just stay there flapping your head up and down, muttering whatever you are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Well, give me a chance to finish what I am saying and then you are more than welcome to get up and do it.

I spoke a few moments ago on the state of the roads in the area, the stretch of road between Salmon Cove and Victoria. It is deplorable. It is becoming impassable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fourteen years.

MR. SWEENEY: Now, something astounding has just happened.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, I just heard her voice for the first time. Now, you will have your chance. You will have your chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I say, Mr. Speaker, I am being interrupted over here, but I will have to tell her that I am speaking about the issues in my district. I am raising them. If she wants to speak about the issues in her district, she can do that, too, but I am sure that some of the fishermen in her district would like to speak to her. I am sure of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) plant workers.

MR. SWEENEY: There are plant workers down there who want to see her. You leave the roads to me, in my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) saw what happened there.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, we have pretty good highways in some parts of it. It is just that some of them, since we have taken the weigh scales off the highways, the crab trucks going back and forth are destroying other stretches of the highways. That is what is doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Well, it is obvious now that the galleries have emptied. The crab fisherman have gone home. The peanut gallery is coming awake over there, and they are starting to yap. The crackies are coming out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that we are getting some interaction here, because obviously I am hitting a nerve. I am hitting a nerve here. It is obvious, I am hitting a nerve.

What is missing in all of this, in this Budget - because this Budget does not mean a thing. What is written on that Budget document is a total waste because, lo and behold, on Tuesday we had a cancer clinic announced for Grand Falls-Windsor; and, God love them, they got it. Unfortunately, the Department of Health, some three years ago, recommended that clinic would be valued at $4 million. All of a sudden, the clinic is only worth $1.2 million right now, so the downgrading of services.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the member is saying is not accurate. The clinic was not valued at that. There were other areas like pharmacy, ambulatory. There was a whole variety of services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - dialysis and others, that were in the overall plan. It was not just cancer.

I just wanted to correct him. I did not mean to take up his time, but that is not accurate what he is saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

There is a lot of shouting and private conversation going on back and forth the House. We are into the Budget debate. Every member of the House will get twenty minutes to speak, and every member will be afforded that opportunity. I ask for members to afford the person who has been recognized by the Chair the opportunity to speak in silence.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

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

As usual, the minister is not informing me of something that I should know, because he is not in his department long enough yet. I think he is being pre-empted today by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I think she is the real Minister of Health, because she is making the announcements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doing a good job.

MR. SWEENEY: Absolutely, she is doing a good job.

If I can get back to my line of thought, the interesting part of all of this is, when I questioned the minister the other night in Estimates as to where the new money came from for the cancer clinic: Oh, there is no new money. The Department of Health is going to find it within their own resources.

Now, that is scary. Something is coming out. There was another $3 million put back in yesterday, in Stephenville. Where is that coming from? By the time we are finished here, with Port aux Basques piled in there, and the Northern Peninsula, by the time we get all that finished, there is $7 million or $8 million coming out of the Department of Health budget somewhere. Now, where will that be?

I would suspect that Mr. Puddister, the President of NAPE, had better start, and stay on the road, and lobby as many people in this Province as he can, because I know I certainly will, and I will be protecting every job in my district. I will be speaking for the people of my area, and I am sure my colleague from Port de Grave will be doing the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace that his time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I have listed only some of the reasons why I am not supporting this Budget, but I will be cluing up. I will be finishing up my statement at another time, because I understand that I will have another opportunity to speak by the time we get to second reading.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me today to rise and speak to the Budget for 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I also stand today to support this Budget for 2005.

I have taken the time over the past few days and the past couple of weeks to listen to the debate regarding the Budget for 2005, and I have listened to perspectives from both sides. Mr. Speaker, I worked in the nursing profession and in the health care system for ten years. I also went to school at Western Memorial Regional Hospital for three years to obtain my education in nursing.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate, and what I would like to say is that over the last ten years - I have listened to what the people on the other side have had to say today. I sit back and I realize that the debate that is going on here today, certainly we should consider what happened long before we took over the administration of this government. Let's look at what happened over the last ten years, Mr. Speaker.

When I worked in the Western Memorial Regional Hospital, and when I worked in the hospital at Norris Point, there were several incidents when I was working as a nurse. On a day-to-day basis, nurses sit back and continually assess the health care system. When you are trained as a nurse, you are trained to be a critical decision maker, and you go through a decision-making process. Every day you make decisions in nursing. You use that decision-making process. What I saw when I was working in the health care system was how the former Administration certainly managed in a way of crisis management. That is what we used every day. When we sat in the lunchrooms, and when we worked in the hospitals, we thought about how the decisions that were being made of the day were not necessarily the right decisions. I saw many incidents.

I heard the Member for Bay of Islands talk about the Hay report, and talk about how it was put forward to move patients to Stephenville while they were waiting for long-term care. Well, Mr. Speaker, I worked in the health care system for ten years and I saw that happen under the former Administration, and on a continual basis I saw it happen. We saw it happen on a month-to-month basis. At least once or twice a month we saw a patient moved from Stephenville. At one point, they took a patient and they moved the patient to Rocky Harbour. Her family came home from Ontario and had to travel to Rocky Harbour and stay in a hotel so that they could visit their family member, who was placed in the hospital in Rocky Harbour while she was waiting for a bed in Stephenville. Then they stand up here today and say that the Hay report suggested that we do this, and they stand up here today and say do not do it, when they did it for ten years.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this Budget. One of the initiatives we have put forward in this Budget is we invested money in medical equipment, we invested money in an MRI, and we invested money in a mammogram for Corner Brook and for St. John's. Mr. Speaker, when I was working as a nurse at Western Memorial Regional Hospital there was money given to Western Memorial Regional Hospital to invest in medical equipment under the former administration. Mr. Speaker, to do you know what they did with that money? They took that money and spent it elsewhere. They didn't spend it on equipment, they spent it on their crisis management initiatives.

I remember working on the floor one night - and we kept opening an extra unit on the fourth floor at the hospital - and I made a comment at lunch break: You know, why don't they just open that floor there, instead of calling in nurses on double staff every night? I made that comment around someone who was a board member and the next week here was a desk there on the floor, they were opening a new unit. They were making an announcement that they were opening a new unit.

Mr. Speaker, in the last ten years, also, I have a daughter, who is eighteen years old now, who went to school in Deer Lake, went through the education system, and I am proud to say she is graduating this year. Mr. Speaker, we have had our challenges in the education system for a long time. I can tell you stories about when my daughter grew up, how she was placed in a class with thirty-eight students in Grade 3 around 1996. I am not sure of the year but it was under the former administration. Do you know what I was told as a parent? I was told that this was an initiative being brought forward by the government, and they wanted them to pilot a project for larger classroom sizes. For that year, I continually went up to the school, and when I picked up my daughter, my daughter was out in the corridors doing her math work and doing her science work because the class sizes were too large. In our Budget, Mr. Speaker, what we have done is we have looked at the class sizes and from K to 3, when it is most important, we have put an initiative forward to decrease the class sizes.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I went through closures of schools. I went through amalgamation with my daughter. The closure of schools in Cormack, in Reidville. The amalgamation of all the schools in Deer Lake. They put a K to 3, Grades 4 to 6, Grades 7 to 9 and Grades 10 to 12 schools in the Town of Deer Lake. I certainly did not hear any members opposite get up and make statements in their debate that they had done that. They certainly got up and criticized what we have done as a government.

I also remember my daughter when she went to Grade 7, actually. They had modular programs at the school, at Xavier in Deer Lake. I was quite excited because she would get to do music and canoeing and recreation, I guess outdoor sports and that, things that would be important when she graduates from high school. She took part in a program last summer and they told her if she wanted to go to Med school, it was a good idea for her to take music in university.

What we have done, as a government, is we have implemented a music program that they took away, Mr. Speaker. They took that away when my daughter was in Grade 7 and we have brought that back. They talk about the numbers of teachers. I was speaking to someone the other day and they said they really have a short memory here because back in the mid-1990s we remember large numbers of teachers coming out of the classroom. That is why that program was cancelled back in 1997-1998.

Mr. Speaker, my decision to go into politics was really based on working in the health care system for ten years and seeing the crisis management that went on with the health care system. I saw firsthand - and most frontline workers, when they listen to the debate in this House and they listen to both sides of it, I am sure they sit back - like I do when I sit in my seat - and say: they have a short memory. We are out here working on the frontline in this system and exactly what they are criticizing here is exactly what they did for ten years when I worked in the nursing system.

Mr. Speaker, health care in our community is not only about the health care that you receive in a hospital or at a clinic. The health of our communities is very important, Mr. Speaker. It is all based on your social-economic status. I think what our government has done with this Budget, has looked at the social-economic status of our communities and brought forward initiatives that would improve the social-economic status of the people in the communities.

I have heard the debate over the last few weeks about rural communities. I hear this all the time, how we are not doing anything for rural communities. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of this House of Assembly and I represent people from rural communities, and I assure you, when I read the Budget for 2005 I saw quite a few initiatives come forward for rural Newfoundland.

The week of the Budget, I guess, we announced that rural clinics would not be closing in rural Newfoundland. In my District of Humber Valley, that was one of the main concerns, that the rural clinics would be closing in their communities. Actually, back a couple of years ago, under the former Administration, they went out to a community and they were going to close down a rural clinic. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? They did not even consult with the people. They did not even know they were coming out to close down the clinic. They had given notice to the people that they were leasing from, that they were closing the clinic down, with absolutely no consultation with anybody in the community, and not even notification to the member of the health care board in that area.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done is kept those rural clinics open. We have recognized how important they are to the rural communities here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are going to take those rural clinics and we are going to implement a health care system that provides services to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not just going to go in in a crisis management mode - a community comes and requests something and then: okay, give this here to them to keep them quiet. We are going to go through the same process that I went through as a nurse. We are going to go through a decision-making process where you go in, you assess the situation, we look at all the factors, we look at the short-term goals, we look at the long-term goals, and that is exactly what we have done here in this Budget, Mr. Speaker.

In the nursing process, Mr. Speaker, we always diagnose after we assess the situation, after we look at all the factors and so on, and my diagnosis for the former Administration was crisis management. My diagnosis for what we are doing here with this Budget is we are taking our time. We are taking all factors into account. We have laid out a Budget here. It is not a one-year plan. If you look at this Budget here, you can see the short-term plan and you can see the long-term plan, Mr. Speaker. We are starting to implement that plan. You implement a plan and you evaluate a plan and you re-evaluate a plan and you go back and look at all other factors. That is what I did as a nurse and that is exactly what we are doing as a government with this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, not only have we looked at our health care system and looked at education, like I said, the health care of a community is based on their social-economic status and we have brought forward initiatives under the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to put money out into communities so initiatives can go forward.

Just this past year we announced a waterfront development in my district that will see tourism increase in my district. We cannot only depend on one or two industries in rural Newfoundland. We have to be creative and look at other industries that will make these communities survive, and that is exactly what we are doing as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, we have also, in our management of our industries, looked at forestry. I have an integrated sawmill in my community and I have worked with the minister over the last year to bring some stability to that industry in my district. Certainly, as time goes by, we see how a good plan is being put in place by the minister and how the effect it is having on the communities out there. People feel more secure about their jobs in the integrated sawmill in my district. We looked at the supply of wood. That is very important to rural communities and we are managing that much better, I must say, than has been done under the former Administration.

Mr. Speaker, we are doubling the Budget for business and market development. We have so many resources here in Newfoundland and we have to market them to the world. A fine example is the Humber Valley Resort in my District of Humber Valley, and how they took that and marketed it to the world. Well, we are going to do exactly the same thing with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the way we are going to make rural Newfoundland and Labrador survive.

Mr. Speaker, I watched on the news a couple of days ago how they talked about the public sector jobs gone out of our rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, we are going to replace every one of those jobs with private sector jobs, and more than just one job. For every one job we are going to see ten jobs. We are just eighteen months in government and we have put together a plan that I think will see the survival of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when our Budget came out for 2005, I called people in the community that night and the day after, and they were pleased with the Budget. They were pleased because they thought there was a balance in that Budget. They know that we are a government that has been in place for eighteen months, and they know that we are on the right track.

Mr. Speaker, just this past weekend, actually, I went out to the Herder championship on the West Coast of Newfoundland, and I saw change in attitude with the people from my district. I made a comment to a friend of mine, I said: Everybody is so positive. The pride that was there, not only with the people who were cheering for my hockey team, but also that were cheering for the hockey team. I made a comment to one of my best friends, that you can totally see the change in attitude. Her husband was sitting next to her, and do you know what he said? He said: Cathy that attitude changed when we got the Atlantic Accord changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, we can see, with this Budget and with what we have done over the past eighteen months, we are on the right track. We hear it here in this House, the negatively that arises and the differing opinions against the Budget, people not supporting the Budget, but I assure you, there are many people out there who support what we are doing. I am very pleased actually to support this Budget.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand to speak to the Budget, but I can tell you upfront I am not as pleased with the Budget as the member for Deer Lake. In fact, I do not even know why, or how, we can actually stand in this House of Assembly for the next couple of weeks and discuss a Budget that has been printed and explain to the people of the Province when the Budget is changing on a daily basis. I do not know from one day to the next what we are debating in the House, what Budget we are debating, because the figures keep changing. We have seen this in the last two days with regard to health care.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, I am not going to stand here and say that I am pleased with the Budget. In fact, on the contrary, I am absolutely disgusted with the Budget. The reason that I am saying that, Mr. Speaker, is because this Budget, like the one last year, for anyone who is out there with a level head and an ear to what is happening in the Province realizes that the two Budgets that have been put forward by the Tory government the past two years have been nothing more than an attack on rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just me saying it. If you pick up any newspaper in rural areas of the Province, like The Packet, you will say a time for reckoning. They are talking about cuts to schools in their districts out there. Another editorial in a paper: Danny's decisions destructive. It goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I am not just making this up, and if anyone believes that there isn't a plan, if they would just stop and listen for a few minutes while I just go through some of the things that this government has done last year and they are proposing to do this year to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I think, at the end of the day they will realize, yes, there is indeed a plan and that this government is following through on this plan.

Let's just talk about some of the things that have happened, Mr. Speaker. One of the first things they did in the budget last year was cancel a hospital, or a health care facility, for Grand Bank; one, that the Premier promised during the election would be built. They eliminated, Mr. Speaker - for me, personally, this is probably the worse thing that they have done in my district. We built a brand new twenty-bed facility on Fogo Island and when this government came in they closed ten of the twenty beds.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively today and yesterday, while the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women got up and announced that because some of the decisions in the Hay report affected women in her district she would not make cuts to the hospital in her hometown of Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, she got up again today and defended that by saying, the reason she is not closing the kitchen in the hospital in Stephenville is because the majority of people who work in the kitchen are female, they are women, and she will not tolerate that as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days I have been dealing with a situation on Fogo Island that involves an eighty-two-year-old terminally ill woman. Her family has been told by her doctors that she no longer has any room in the hospital and they want to discharge her, to send her home. Mr. Speaker, her family is very distraught about this, and they should be. The reason that they cannot keep her in the hospital is because they do not have the beds, even though there is room for the beds in the hospital. The hospital was built for twenty beds, twenty exist in the building, and yet they are saying, you cannot come to the hospital.

Recently, a similar thing happened to another woman on Fogo Island who went to the doctor thinking that she had a stroke, and they sent her home. Well, Mr. Speaker, that woman has since died. Now, I am not blaming it on the health care professionals on Fogo Island. They are certainly doing everything that they can possibly do. They, too, want those ten other beds, the ten beds that this government closed, to open.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is criminal that the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women can stand and make decisions affecting health care, even though that is not her portfolio, can stand in this House and so proudly brag, beat her chest, and say, I am doing this, and this is the official announcement for her own district when it comes to health care for women, but she cannot do it for the people in my district, Mr. Speaker.

I did hear her say today that the reason she is not closing the kitchen facilities in Stephenville hospital is because the majority of the employees there are women. Well, that is good news for the hospital in Twillingate where, for a number of years now, they have talked about cancelling the kitchen area of the hospital and having meals delivered from Gander. So, what the minister said today is that any position or any division in a hospital that is made up of a majority of women will not be closed. Well, I guess the people who work in the kitchen in Twillingate should rest a little bit more assured tonight that they will not lose their jobs in this Budget or the coming Budgets.

Mr. Speaker, we have the elimination of a health care facility in Grand Bank. We have ten beds cut out of the Fogo Island hospital. They cancelled the CAT scan for the Burin Peninsula. They cancelled the school in L'Anse-au-Loup. They cancelled an auditorium in Labrador. They cancelled the social services office in many rural areas of the Province, including the one in my district and the one in the district of the Member for Bonavista North. They cancelled all of these things. They closed the driver examiner's office in the remote and rural areas of the Province, like Fogo Island and Change Islands and many other areas, so now it costs a lot of money and a lot of effort for people there, if they want their children to become drivers, to have to travel off the islands to go and do the test. It is not just on the islands; it is happening in Twillingate. I was talking to a woman last night from Placentia, and she said they cancelled it down there, but none of these services have been cancelled in the larger urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, they closed courthouses in Botwood, in Springdale. They built one in Goose Bay. They closed one in other rural areas of the Province, just like Springdale and Botwood, and I am sure the Member for Windsor-Springdale has heard plenty about that. Then, again, he doesn't talk much about it in the House of Assembly because he is not permitted. Closed the weigh scales, rural areas of the Province where people in those areas had some decent employment from year to year. They closed that, with no regard to the employees and no regard to the dangers that are occurring on the highways as a result of these weigh scale closures.

Mr. Speaker, they cut 401 teachers from the schools of our Province in the last two years. I just heard the member representing Deer Lake stand in the House and talk about what a great service they are providing in education to the students of her area, and that this Tory government are moving ahead in leaps and bounds when it talks about education. Well, I say to the member, if she were to do some checking and look at the enrollment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador compared to the larger urban areas, and did the figures, did the math, she would realize that the majority of teachers who are coming out of schools in this Province are coming out of rural schools, and they are not coming out in the same numbers in the larger urban areas like St. John's and Mount Pearl and Corner Brook as they are in the more rural areas like the ones that I represent. She does not have to take my word for that. All she has to do is to call up any of the school boards in the Province, ask them how many teachers they are losing, and then compare that with the St. John's area.

I say to the member opposite who talked about the size of classes, in the Budget the Minister of Education said that he was leaving seventy-five teachers in the system to accommodate larger classes in Kindergarten to Grade 6. Well, I say, if you look around the Province, the schools that have the largest population in those grades are located right here in St. John's and Mount Pearl, because he is talking about reducing the numbers above twenty-five in the primary grades, from K to 3, trying to reduce the number of kids in a class from K to 3 in rural areas of the Province from twenty-five downward. Well, I can say one thing: there are not too many schools in my district where you have more than twenty-five students in a classroom. So, I say again, the benefit of this program will be for the larger urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, they have cancelled or they have closed a lot of things in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in the last two years, and they are continuing to close and downsize a lot of things in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The latest one was announced by the Minister of Transportation and Works just a couple of weeks ago, that now he is closing the highways depots in thirteen rural areas of the Province for the summer months. What is going to happen is that the highways workers in a smaller, more remote area are going to have to look after far larger districts. For example, the highways depot on New World Island in my district is going to be closed and that will be now serviced from an area in Victoria Cove, which will take a grader operator two or three hours to be able to move from Victoria Cove to my district. Not only that, but now, instead of having 325 kilometers of roads to be responsible for, it is well up over 700 kilometers.

Mr. Speaker, anyone with a grain of sense and who has been following the media in recent weeks will know that this government is intent, and this government has a plan, to reduce the populations in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They are doing that by reducing the services, laying off people, jacking up the fees, like on the ferries, so that it makes it more and more expensive for people to live in those remote areas, charging more for licences, eliminating driver examinations, eliminating the services, raising the fees so that they can push the people out of rural Newfoundland and into the larger urban areas. Mr. Speaker, that is the plan. They know they have a plan but they just do not want to come clean with the people of the Province. If you look at the editorials from around the Province, you will realize that people out there are far smarter than this crowd give them credit for.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, they have a plan. By eliminating all the services that I just mentioned and raising every fee that government today levies on anyone - every one of these fees was raised last year. If you eliminate services and raise fees, that is nothing can happen, but people are going to have to start moving from the more rural areas, if they want to live and enjoy the creature comforts that are being afforded to the people in the larger urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is going to do more damage to rural Newfoundland and Labrador than any other thing that is in this plan that this government has. I will tell you what it is. It is the production quota system that the Minister of Fisheries has implemented or is trying to implement and push down the throats of the people of this Province.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, what will happen if we permit this minister to do this - he says he is doing it to take the chaos out of the industry and try and management the decline of fish stocks, and try and distribute crab and other species around the Island. I can tell you, that I have grave concerns, that if the minister gets his way with this production quota system, there will be very little left to rural Newfoundland and Labrador in a very few short years.

For one thing, what he is doing is, he is eliminating all competition in the processing sector and he will, by doing so, drive the price that is offered to fishermen for their product down, and that will have the effect, Mr. Speaker, of making some of these fishermen so dependant then on the merchants that they will not even know, from day to day, week to week, and sometimes from season to season, what they will be offered for their catch by the large processors.

The other thing that I have great concern about, Mr. Speaker, with regard to production quotas is the transferability of these quotas. For those people out there who are thinking that production quotas is a good idea for plant workers, Mr. Speaker, I would like for them to sit back and think for a minute. Once these production quotas come to law, these production quotas will become transferable. The minister says that will not be able to happen for two years until after the pilot project is over, but his Deputy Minister already told us in a briefing some weeks ago, that is not really the case. In fact, under some situations these quotas can become transferable immediately.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, because you represent a fishing district and you have the same situation in yours that I have in mine, if you have a crab plant that does not process a lot of crab, it does not employ a whole lot of people, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, if that quota becomes transferable you can rest assured that one of these days FPI, who operates the plan in your district, will come forward to government and say: Listen, Premier, I have two plants. I have one in Bonavista and I have one in Triton. We do not need two plants. With the declining crab quotas, in order for us to make money for our shareholders - I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have heard it - in order to increase the profits for our shareholders, we are going to have to get rid of one of these plants and we are going to have to transfer the quota to another plant.

Mr. Speaker, I talked to an individual plant worker from Triton the other day and he is convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when FPI makes this decision the transfer will occur from Bonavista to Triton, because he said: Our plant is in far better condition, it is a newer operation, and FPI would be far better off transferring the crab quota from Bonavista to Triton. Mr. Speaker, I think that you know in your heart of hearts it is only going to be a short period of time before that is done.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing about production quotas for plants: Right now, in a plant like the one in your district, or like the ones in mine, they roughly have between 250 and 300 workers. The reason there are so many workers for such a short period of time is because of the way crab is landed. Right now, processors cannot tell fishermen when to fish. Fishermen tell themselves when to fish, and so they should, they own the quotas. Right now what happens is that usually once the crab season starts a lot of crab is landed in a short period of time and as a result of that you need two shifts to handle it. You know, Mr. Speaker, when you go down to the wharf sometimes the crab is coming in faster than it is at some other times and the owner of the plant has to call in the second shift in order to clean it up before it goes bad.

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do, representing Bonavista, that is the only reason these plants have a second shift. You also know that once these production quotas come into effect and the processors basically own the crab in the water, then they can start telling the fishermen when they can fish and when to land it. As a result of that, what they will do is they will figure out a system whereby they will tell fishermen to fish, and a result they will stagger their landings, and as a result of that there will be no need of a second shift in the plant. You know as well as I do that is what is coming.

For the minister to be standing up and saying, this is going to help the plant workers, and this is going to allow them to work for longer periods of time - well, that might be true of the first shift, Mr. Speaker. I will even admit that under the system the minister is proposing the first shift in a crab plant may actually, in fact, get a few more hours. They might even get a couple of more weeks on the season, but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, the second shift won't be required anymore. They will be told: We no longer need you.

What happens to rural communities like yours and mine, Mr. Speaker, if you tell a second shift to go home? You are telling half the population at the plant that their services are no longer required. These people are laid off, no hope for employment, so what do they do? They leave their communities. What is going to happen under this scheme, even if the plants are not closed and the licenses are transferred to another area in the Province, what you are going to have is half the workforce working at these very plants. Where today a plant is working with 250 or 300 people on two shifts, what you will see is 125 on one. Then you have 125 people laid off, you have 125 families with no source of income, and 125 families that are either going to have to leave their area for the larger urban areas, like St. John's and Mount Pearl, or more likely, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have to head for the mainland, because they are not going to find work in St. John's and Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, I live here in St. John's right now and I have no problem with St. John's, but I will tell you, you go around this place and there is no difference in St. John's today than there is in Toronto or New York City. It is a beehive of activity. You go to the store any time of the week, you go on Monday morning or Sunday morning, and, Mr. Speaker, the place is full and everything is hustling and bustling. The number of houses being built is going through the roof. Well, Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is drive a half hour west of the overpass out here and you will see a totally different picture, because it is not hustling and bustling. It is not even doing that in Conception Bay South, I say to you. I also say to you, if you go to Conception Bay North it is certainly not hustling and bustling except for the cars going to and from St. John's to work every day. The further you move from this city, you will realize that there is absolutely nothing happening in this Province.

I look across and I see the Member who represents Marystown, and just last year and this year they were talking about how they didn't have enough houses to house the employees who had been moving into the area because of work on the rig. In Estimates this morning I talked to the minister responsible for the oil industry, the Minister of Natural Resources, and he told me today that rig is going to be towed out some time this year. So, sometime before Christmas there will be no rig, no work down in Marystown. He also informed me that even if the Hebron field goes - and we will not know that until next January, according to the owners of the companies. They are not even going to tell us whether or not they are planning to move ahead or if they are going to scrap it until next January. The rig is going to have already been left Marystown before there is even a decision if they are going to move ahead on Hebron.

The Minister of Resources told me today that the earliest possible time that you could see any construction on another platform to do the Hebron well would be twenty-four to thirty months after that. So if you add on twenty-four to thirty months after next January, you are talking three years from now. You are talking three years from now before the people on the Burin Peninsula will see any work in Marystown. I say to the member who represents the town down there and represents - or tries to represent, or half tries to represent - the people on the Burin Peninsula: right now we have the plant practically closed in Fortune. FPI has said, no commitment made for next year. So you could have, in essence, the employees in the Fortune plant gone. In six to eight or ten months from now, you are going to see the Marystown shipyard closed down. You are not going to see a shortage in housing then, I say to the hon. member. It was said in the news that social services recipients were being kicked out of their rented accommodations down there so that employees who are working in Marystown could move in and take these places. I will tell the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: One minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo by leave.

MR. REID: I will tell you, the people in Marystown will be happy to have the social services recipients move back into those houses in less than a year.

Mr. Speaker, as I started out by saying, there is a plan by this government to gut rural Newfoundland and Labrador. All I am saying to the members opposite who represent rural districts, all you have to do is look around you, and do not wear blinkers. They have experienced just as many cuts to services that I have seen in my district. If they believe there is not a master plan to force people from the more remote areas into the larger centres, than they are sadly mistaken. I talked to people in St. John's, and do you know what the attitude is in here by some people? The same as it is, the people who live in Toronto, about Newfoundland. They say: What are they doing out there anyway? So the Premier, being a St. John's boy, I say to the minister, does not understand how the rest of rural Newfoundland operates. He, like those who might say what are they doing out there anyway, got his plan to make sure that they are not out there for much longer.

Thank you -

MR. J. BYRNE: Sit down.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Minister of Municipal Affairs has to get so hostile. I haven't said a word to him in this session of the House and yet he is over there shouting and bawling and telling me to sit down. But I say to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - he does not tell anyone when to sit down in this House, Mr. Speaker. It is you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that he is speaking on leave and if he needs a few extra minutes to clue up, by all means, or until leave is withdrawn.

MR. REID: So all I am saying, Mr. Speaker, if you do not think that there is a plan by this government to close down rural Newfoundland, I suggest you are not living in reality.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to rise in this House and speak in support of the Budget. I am glad to be here today and to be able to speak on behalf of the Budget.

When we came to government in November, 2003 we faced a very stark situation in the Province. Our economic development budget had been slashed over the last ten years. We have gone from a time ten years ago when we had almost $26 million being directly invested in economic opportunities in this Province and that had been slashed down to about $2.6 million. We came in the government at a time when relationships with the federal government, particularly with ACOA and Industry Canada, had been soured to such a degree that the Province had been reduced to a stakeholder at the table with them rather than a partner. We were having difficulty influencing where monies, and tremendous monies, from the federal government were being spent in this Province, but we pressed ahead in a time of great fiscal difficulty.

We maintained the $2.6 million in the Budget under the Seed Capital Program and under the Business and Market Development Program. In the last year, from those two programs alone, we have created over 380 new jobs and maintained another 174 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, most of those jobs in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Despite the fiscal situation we found ourselves in, Mr. Speaker, we also made significant investments in broadband. Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Province realizes that we live in a technological age and people need Internet, they need e-mail, they need access to information to be able to expand, to grow, and to start new businesses. Because of the investments that we were able to make in broadband and because of the investments by the federal government and by private partners in industry, there was an investment of over $15 million made in broadband in this Province in the last year. Mr. Speaker, most of that, if not all of it, was done in rural parts of the Province. That is extremely important.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, we initiated a marine strategy. Now, if there is one thing the people of this Province understand, it is the sea. Making our living on the sea is what we have done for the last 500 years. In many ways it is what will keep us here in the next 500 years. We have incredible facilities here in this Province. Besides our people, who have the sea running in their veins, we have the Marine Institute, Memorial University, the NRC, we have Seacore, we have facilities around marine simulation, we have the flume tanks, we have the ice tanks, we have innovative companies, such as Rutter Inc. and LoTech, that have incredible expertise in marine technology.

Mr. Speaker, when marine states visit us here in this Province they tell us that they want to be where we are ten years from now. Well, ten years from now we need to be ten or twenty years ahead of them. We need a strategy that is going to do that, so that we make the right investments in the people, in the institutions, and in the businesses in this Province to clearly establish ourselves as a centre of expertise, a world centre of expertise in marine technology. This Budget contributes $338,000 this year to that marine strategy.

Last year, we also announced a Nearshore Task Force. The Nearshore Task Force is meant to establish this Province as a recognized centre for information and communications technology development. There is a language used in technology called cobalt, which we have a tremendous knowledge and expertise about in this Province, but it is not available in other places in the world. There is a huge opportunity there for us, a huge opportunity also in marine simulation, and our Nearshore Atlantic will make full use of that, market that expertise, do business attraction around that expertise, so that opportunities can be had for the people of this Province.

Despite the difficulties, again around financing, we saw last year, Mr. Speaker, that aquaculture holds great potential in this Province as a sector that we should support and make investment in. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, we announced last year an Aquaculture Working Capital Guarantee Loan Program, and we hope that with the difficulties, as we address the difficulties in Harbour Breton, part of the solution for Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula will be in the aquaculture industry, and we have a program now that will support business opportunities in that area.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, despite the fiscal situation we found ourselves in, we found $3.5 million to ensure that the plant, the fish plant, in Harbour Breton will continue to operate, saving between 300 and 350 jobs in a rural community. That is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, and speaks to the commitment that this government has to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very versatile, hard-working people and they very much want to live in this Province. We have tremendous challenges around out-migration; that is not particular to us. Provinces have this same problem. Countries all over the world are having huge challenges around out-migration out of our rural communities, and unfortunately we have never been able to stem the flow. There has been quite a lot of talk going about, about what happened in 2003, and I have listened to members of the Opposition speak and say that they stopped out-migration and, in fact, had an in-migration of 300 people in 2003. That would be wonderful if it were true. People all over this Province, including people on this side of the House, would rejoice if that were the fact. Unfortunately, it is not. Over 1,000 people left this Province in 2003, and that information has been available to anybody who has access to the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency for quite some time.

If people are going to stay in rural parts of this Province, they have to have access to full-time meaningful work. Now, we do not have to try and sustain Newfoundland and Labrador by make-work projects. There are wonderful opportunities all around this Province.

During the last year, despite all of the initiatives that we undertook, despite the tremendous investment in all parts of this Province, we knew we had to do more. We took this last year to take the time to talk to people in all parts of the Province, to tap into their grassroots knowledge and experience about the strengths of their regions and the opportunities that existed in their regions. We took the time to gather in all of the economic information that we could find from economic development plans for different regions in the Province. We spoke to municipal councils, we talked to Regional Economic Development Boards, and we would gleaned in every piece of information that we could find. We went through all of the economic development departments of government and we gathered in every idea and opportunity that had been identified to grow the economy in this Province.

The Premier established an economic initiatives committee of Cabinet. This committee, with the work of our people in our different departments, took all of these opportunities and drilled down to make sure that they were solid and that they were real. Out of all of that came our rural diversification plan, and there are nine rural diversification plans, because what will work for the people of the Burin Peninsula will not necessary work for the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So, we took the time to find the information, to do our homework, to test it wherever we could, and we have identified real opportunities for people all over this Province: opportunities still in mining, opportunities in our natural resources of gas, in forestry. We have opportunities in agrifoods, in manufacturing, in IT, in our ecosystems, in boat building, in environmental science, all kinds of opportunities everywhere in this Province, but people need tools if they are going to be able to take advantage of those opportunities.

The one thing that we have heard over and over and over again during the last year when we have talked to small and medium-sized businesses - who are the drivers of the economy in this Province, the drivers of the economy in this country - the one thing that we have heard from them time and time again is that investment to capital is a major impediment to business. They do not have access to capital to start up their businesses and to grow their businesses.

Well, we took a major step in that last year also when we registered our first labour sponsored venture capital fund, GrowthWorks. We worked with the Federation of Labour, we worked with business in this Province, and, as a result, GrowthWorks came and was registered in this Province. GrowthWorks have just reported to us that they are very, very pleased with their first raising of capital in this Province. They are delighted with the response that they have, and they are looking forward to a long-term future here.

As a result, part of the negotiation in terms of getting that labour sponsored venture capital fund registered here, one of the conditions that we put on that, was that 75 per cent of the money that is raised in this Province will have to be invested in this Province. Another condition we insisted on was that we have a homegrown investment committee who would direct those investments - business people from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Still, more was required. There were still significant funding gaps to business in this Province. In this Budget, Madam Speaker, we announced a $10 million small and medium sized business enterprise loan, a $10 million loan that businesses from all over this Province can access, a $10 million fund that can be accessed by small and medium sized businesses all over this Province. We are targeting strategic growth sectors in the Province, such as manufacturing, value-added production, IT and tourism. It will give companies opportunities, new companies the money that they need to start up, and other existing companies the ability to expand, create and retain long-term jobs. We need to create a sustainable economy in this Province, Madam Speaker. We have a $10 million revolving fund, Madam Speaker. Then, on top of that, we announced a $5 million diversification fund.

Madam Speaker, there has been quite a lot of interest raised over the fact that leverage money was not available to community organizations and economic development groups all over this Province. Five million dollars is now available for economic development groups all over this Province to help leverage significant funding from federal sources. Madam Speaker, there are millions and millions of dollars available to communities all over this Province for economic development in their communities, to build infrastructure, to build what is required in the community to support economic development.

Now, Madam Speaker, it was very difficult for a lot of these agencies, organizations and communities to find their proportionate share of the money. A lot of this federal money was falling off the table because communities did not have the wherewithal to leverage out the money. Now, Madam Speaker, the $5 million that we have in this diversification fund will speak to that, will address that gap in the funding, and that is a very, very good news story for economic development organizations all over this Province.

There continue to be some funding gaps, Madam Speaker, for small businesses in this Province and we are working diligently with different private partners to try and fully address all of those gaps, so that businesses, when they come to this Province or they want to start up in this Province, have a whole continuum of financing available to them from micro lending on one end to venture capital on the other end.

Madam Speaker, in one year, despite the fiscal restraint we found ourselves in and still face in this Province, we have been able to increase the economic development budget of this Province from $2.6 million up to $16 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: That is pretty significant. That is a major accomplishment in less than eighteen months, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, we also know that economic and social development are intertwined and that they go hand in hand. We also know that the expertise, as it pertains to the regions of this Province, lies in the regions of this Province. Government needed to find a way to effectively communicate, on a regular basis, with the grass roots people of this Province who run this Province and keep it going. As a result, we have established a Rural Secretariat. We have established nine regions in the Province and nine natural clusterings of people and communities who have a number of things in common, have a number of social, economic, historical, cultural connections. We will establish nine councils of the Rural Secretariat. These people will come together and work together with all of the municipalities, the Regional Economic Development Boards, the people involved in health and education and recreation, and they will work and develop a regional vision for each of their regions. As a result, from the Regional Councils, they will send representations to the Provincial Council of the Rural Secretariat. The Provincial Council of the Rural Secretariat will meet with government on a regular basis and advise us on economic and social policy so that they have influence at the very beginning of development of economic and social development in this Province.

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to stand in support of this Budget today. We are working with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to build strong, sustainable economies in every part of this Province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the Budgetary Policy of the government which obviously I find very little to be supportive of and will not be supporting. I am glad, though, I am speaking after the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural destruction. I will just make a few comments with respect to that before I move on to the general theme, Madam Speaker, of a Budget of missed opportunities, a Budget of contradictions, a Budget of missed representations, and some people, Madam Speaker, have even called it a Budget of hypocrisy. I will be pointing out how editorial commentators and representatives of various agencies and groups in the Province have reacted to the provincial government which is very different from what you would hear from members opposite.

Madam Speaker, interesting to hear the minister talk about out-migration. It is always a huge issue in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is one that was discussed a lot during the election. In the Blue Book, written by the Premier personally and Doctor Doug House, who is the real minister in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural destruction, in that particular department, they did not suggest, as the minister just did, that they have to have this council and have some more meetings eighteen months later, and that maybe eighteen months from now they might actually have a plan or some idea. They told the people of the Province, eighteen months ago, that they already knew the answers, that they already had the plan. They knew the solutions. They were not going to take eighteen months and another ten and twelve and fifteen to dream them up or go out and redo the consultation that governments had already done over the years. There are a number of plans already in place that were being implemented and out-migration that actually slowed and Stats Canada had actually reported that it had stopped.

What is this minister bragging about? What the minister is bragging about is that, in the eighteen months they have been on the job and that she has been there, being a front for Doctor Doug House, being allowed to go out and make a scattered speech about the hubs in Gander, Clarenville, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook - Stephenville does not even count because it is not on the Trans-Canada. There is nothing on the Northern Peninsula, nothing at all, no hub on the Northern Peninsula. What has happened in the eighteen months, Madam Speaker? In the eighteen months - and she said: Well, the stats were not right during the election. Stats Canada revised the numbers and 1,000 people have left in 2003. Now, even if that is the new number, that is the smallest number, the least amount of out-migration in twelve to fifteen years. What has happened in eighteen months? They were the ones with the plan. They are going to stop it all. They knew how to turn it around. Now she is saying: Oh, it is a challenge that confronts us all.

What happened? Twenty-seven hundred people have left in eighteen months, and I used to be a Math teacher. So, if you take one year in which 1,000 left, which is the smallest number in recent history, and if you take eighteen month, which is one-and-a-half times that, even if nothing had changed, even if things had gone along like they were, that would mean 1,500 people would have left. But it is not 1,500 people in the eighteen months, it is almost double that. So, their great plan has taken the out-migration rates and instead of slowing it down, which had happened for five or six or seven years in a row to being almost non-existent, it has ratcheted back up. It has gone back to double the rate that it used to be, and it has gone that way because of actions taken by this government in terms of suppressing freedom, suppressing collective bargaining, bringing in wage freezes, misleading people about the state of the Provincial Treasury in the economy, depressing people, putting the economy into a funk, putting people back to where they are no longer spending their money. There are people today - retail sales have gone down.

The economy was booming until a year-and-a-half ago. This group has managed, in eighteen short months, to take the out-migration rate and double it to what it was before. Twice as many people are leaving on average in a year since this new government took over. Now you have the public service unions saying they have concluded that there is an all-out assault on rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because every facility and service that is not in one of these hubs, that the Member for Gander talks about - goes on the Open Line - and the little job where his nose got brown first. Everybody knows that phrase in Newfoundland and Labrador. His nose was brown for a while, trying to impress the leader, trying to impress the Premier, to see if he might get considered for Cabinet. It got to the point now where the whole head and a good part of his body is pretty brown. Of course, he goes on the Open Line and on the airwaves and says: We have a rural plan. Bring it to the hubs. The Member for Burin-Placentia West agrees with him. Where is the hub for the Burin Peninsula for health care? Clarenville. Good enough for them, he said. If you need a CAT scan on the Burin Peninsula, go to Clarenville. Guess what he said in this House? The wait lists are not too long in Clarenville, that is the hub.

Now, you wonder why people are leaving rural Newfoundland and Labrador in double the numbers that they were in the last year that we were in the Administration. The minister, who was part of a group that said: Oh, do not worry about that, we have the answers. We do not need any time to make them up, we already know them. She gets up today now and changed her tune and said: Well, that has always been a challenge. You do not expect us to have the answers in just eighteen months. Not only do they not have any answers, they have made it worse. They have made it worse by a factor of two. Twice as many people are leaving in the same period of time as had been happening before. So I am glad she spoke about that and acknowledged the challenges. I am sure she is very proud of the work that she gets to mouth occasionally on behalf of Dr. Doug House, the real minister, the person who helped write the Blue Book, talked about the hubs, went to Stephenville - as a matter of fact, he made a speech about it. He talked about, communities should not be competing with each other. They should understand that the government can only put things in hubs along the corridor.

The Member for Gander who got the gum in his hair, with the brown nose and the brown head and the brown shoulders and the brown rest of it. There is a good bit brown now. There is one fellow - I heard two expressions lately. For him to breathe these days, he has vents in his heels. It is the only way he can get a breath of air there is that much brown. The other one that I heard recently is about the gum. The Member for Gander got gum in his hair. Guess how it got there? The Premier swallowed it. The Premier swallowed the gum. He will be on Night Line, he will be on Open Line talking about those kinds of things. Other members are trying to learn from him about how to try to impress the Premier and get considered for the Cabinet.

What we have - not only do we not have a rural plan and we have people like that foolish enough to do anything to try to impress the Premier, when it makes no sense whatsoever, it cannot be substantiated by any evidence. The evidence shows the exact opposite. People are leaving in double the numbers that they were when we were in the government on an annual basis. Twice as many people leaving each year. What you have is, you have a group that are actually in total disarray over there, total disarray.

The Member for Gander, by the way, was part of it. Just before the Easter break when he was the Whip and they had the announcement in The Beacon during their annual meeting last year in Gander, how pleased he was to get this new appointment as the Whip. For those do not know, the Whip's job is to make sure that enough people show up so that the quorum can be kept in the House and the government can do its business. A very difficult job. Guess how many people, Madam Speaker, because you know - guess how many people have to be here out of the forty-seven that are here? Fourteen. You need fourteen of us to be here to make sure that a meeting of the Legislature continues. That was the job that the Member for Gander had. Make sure fourteen members showed up.

We were debating a money bill, $117 million the government was asking for approval to spend so they could turn a surplus into a deficit - and I will talk about that more later. His job was to make sure fourteen members were in the House to make sure the meeting could go ahead and that the bill could pass. We called for a quorum and they were not here. What an onerous task to ask somebody, keep fourteen out of forty-seven people in the Legislature. He could not do it. The strangest thing to us, because there are a lot of strange things with that group, he failed miserably and got a promotion. He got a promotion! The only thing we can understand is that the Premier wanted to get him a bit closer to keep an eye on him. He obviously could not do that job so he made him his personal Parliamentary Assistant, and he was so proud.

That was in the local papers, I can tell you. I can show you the article. He was on the fast track now. Now, Sir, he was up there. He was right next to the Premier as the Parliamentary Assistant. We said: Yes, he is up there all right. The brown level is increasing. No doubt about it! No wonder he got the gum stuck in his hair. No wonder he got the vents in the taps of his shoes so he can get a scattered breath of fresh air. Make no doubt about it, he is up there all right. He could not keep a quorum. Then the first day in the Legislature he was so proud, he had a great smile on his face. The Premier left early because there were some protesters here about crab. He came in a little later, scurried over and picked up the book bag. Boy, was he proud. Was he proud that he got to pick up the book bag for the Premier. He had this wonderful new job that had him on the fast track to being in the Cabinet. Gone from a Whip that could not convince fourteen colleagues to stay in the House, and was delighted that he got a new job and could carry the books for the Premier and had to put it in the local paper in Gander. He could not keep a quorum.

Here is the group, Madam Speaker, you talk about disarray. We had the Finance Minister - I know he is busy because he is the Acting Minister of Health when the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment is not doing it, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women is not doing it. I wonder who is going to do it tomorrow? Make no wonder Beth Marshall quit. If you ever wanted to see why all you had to do was look at the shenanigans in this House the last two days. An Acting Minister for Health, the man who wanted to be there anyway because he always believed there was $100 million wasted in health and he did not know where it was. Brother, I can guarantee you, he knew where it was. Ten years ago he started saying that; $100 million wasted and he knew where it was. So he was made the Acting Minister of Health. What happened? All of a sudden the Premier announces the cancer clinic for Grand Falls is the right thing to do. No new money though. We will have to find out in the next few weeks who is going to suffer because of that. Because, if you do not put any new money in and you spend $1.55 million that you did not plan to spend, then it is $1.55 million that was targeted for something else that is not going to happen. We will explore that. We are delighted with what is happening in Grand Falls-Windsor and Central Newfoundland with cancer treatment. They certainly do not deserve any credit, other than they finally came to their senses because the people would not give up, because the members on our side would not give up, because the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would not give up.

You had the shame and disgrace of a Premier trying to say, I didn't know about it the first day. On Budget day, when it was raised, why wasn't that in the Budget? The Premier's answer was: Well, I didn't know about it. Then his own member, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, was so embarrassed that he went on the Night Line and said: Sure, I told the Premier about that; he must have known.

MR. JOYCE: A hundred e-mails.

MR. GRIMES: At least 100 e-mails, he said, I sent to him. I met with him myself. So, he disassociated himself from the Premier's comments that he did not know. He said the Premier had to know. Guess what the Premier did then? Instead of admitting that he knew, and made a mistake, he said: Oh, I knew but I didn't know it was so bad that they had to throw up in buckets.

Now, I guess, if you have to throw up in buckets, or if it is a woman's issue, according to the Status of Women Minister, you might get something done about it, because they are over there in total disarray. Nobody knows what is going on, and the Finance Minister is so busy being the Acting Minister of Health, even though he was not doing anything, because somebody else was doing it for him, that he did not even show up for the Committee to defend the Finance Estimates. His own members were here, our members were here, and we were told the minister did not know he was supposed to be here. We, of course, wanted to be accommodating so we rescheduled it for that same evening.

Here is a Minister of Finance whom we are supposed to have confidence in, that he knows what is going on, could not even read a schedule that his House Leader put together, and could not even figure out when he was supposed to be in to defend his own departmental Estimates about the Budget.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the House earlier today there were statements that were inaccurate and were asked to be withdrawn, even though they were made outside of the House. There was a statement made inside the House today, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Service Chair was here, and the staff were here, and all of my officials were here. We went back to my office and called, and the Chair of the Committee indicated there was some mis-communication and the Committee was not available to meet. There were two here. There was one member of the Opposition there, and a second one after. We were here. I had to send back the Chair of the Public Service Commission, and my officials, and they had to reschedule and come back.

We were available, we were ready, we were expecting it, and the Chair of the Committee was not notified, so I would like for you to be accurate in the House. That is absolutely not the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, you made a similar ruling today on a statement made on an event outside of the House. This was an event, a Committee of the House, established by a Chair of a Committee of this House. I think the record should be set straight as to why that was cancelled - it should be put down - not giving wrong information to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a disagreement between two hon. members.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the old minister in a conflict of interest is particularly sensitive these days, Mr. Speaker. The facts are these. The facts are: At 9:00 o'clock in the morning, when he was supposed to be here, as the minister, there was no sign of him. Ten minutes later or so, I even met one of his own members on the Committee, the Member for St. John's Centre, who was going, and I said: Where are you going? He said: I just got a call from upstairs to go down for the Committee meeting. I said: It is already cancelled, boy. Don't you know what is going on? It had already been cancelled in the House because the minister was not here. Those are the facts. You talk about total disarray, total confusion.

Mr. Speaker, talk about yesterday, here is another one, a small point but very telling.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Government Services Committee, we received a schedule for the Committee meeting which was scheduled for Tuesday night, I would have the Leader of the Opposition know. We left here on Monday evening. I, as Chair of the Committee, was not notified of the change. I arrived in my office about 8:55 or 8:50 on Tuesday morning and was made aware then that the Committee meeting had been changed to reflect a meeting for 9:00 o'clock on Tuesday morning. I had not been aware of that. The Committee members on this side of the House had not been aware of that. As a matter of fact, the minister and his officials were en route to the House of Assembly at 8:55 when I informed them that I had a different meeting and I would not be here and neither would (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight that the meeting was rearranged. The members on this side of the House were not informed. I, as the Chairperson, was not informed, and therefore it was changed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate, again, them making the point better than I was trying to. Who is on first over there? It is their own Government House Leader in their own caucus, and now the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - I will get the right name; I don't want to insult the man - no wonder he didn't know. Even in trying to get some information from the Transportation and Works Minister about road expenditures in his own district, he had to write him under the Freedom of Information and was denied the information; denied because he did not put in the money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Talk about a gang who can't shoot straight, and they are supposed to be in the same caucus, a tightly knit group that knows what is going on, supportive of each other. They do not even talk to each other.

The Government House Leader, with our House Leader, arranges the schedules for these meetings. Now he is saying he did not even know until 9:00 o'clock the next morning. Well, we knew. We were there. The minister is trying to say he knew. Well, he did not show up. I am just stating the facts.

Let me finish one other, and then I will adjourn the debate for the day because I know other members have to work this evening with respect to committees. Let me mention just one other in concluding for today, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday was normally Private Members' Day in this House and we had been told, I guess, unofficially, the week before, that the Member for Gander would present a private member's motion with respect to the weather office in Gander, which we were fully prepared to support, because we have made that representation to the Government of Canada before. The record will show there was no Private Members' Day yesterday for one very simple reason, because the group opposite was so addled, so out of sorts about what is going on here, the protest in the gallery, that their House Leader, who is usually one of their better and more organized members, forgot to give the proper notice,

In order to get a motion debated on a Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders say: You should give the notice on the Monday before. There was no notice. Our House Leader asked what was going on. He was addled, he was upset, the Government House Leader was. So a third example, no notice given. Rather than not do business -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order is being raised by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the Government House Leader on business, I think it is important that the record should be set straight on this issue.

Normally on Mondays, and we agree, notice is given for Private Members' Day. I have acted as House Leader, I have been on that side of the House in the past, and there has always being co-operation among members that if you give it on Tuesday, it would be permitted to do ahead. It is my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition, by giving a day's notice, would not agree. Because he did not get the notice on Monday he got sooky and would not let it go ahead. That is why Private Members' Day did not go ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you - I will conclude here. I have great admiration and respect for my neighbour and I tell you, I think the people of the Province know who has been sooky around here for the last few weeks. I think it is old conflict of interest himself. He is under such great pressure, that he is gone a bit sooky, to use the phrase. I do not take any offence by it.

The fact of the matter is, he admitted they did not give the right notice when they should have and we did not close the House or refuse, we agreed to do government business on yesterday, because we felt it was important to do some kind of business rather than get sooky, as he says and insist - what they have to learn, Mr. Speaker, and I think they are starting to learn it with your instruction, is that there are rules to be followed here, and they should learn them well and start following and get their act together.

I will adjourn the debate here, Mr. Speaker, but just for clarification, my understanding is that I have an hour, I have used about twenty-two or twenty-three minutes, and that when we resume again after this long weekend, on Tuesday, if this is the item of business recalled that I can continue on for maybe another thirty-five minutes or so, if I can find something to say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the information of the hon. member, he has thirty-nine minutes left for his presentation.

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, April 26, at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, April 26, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Tuesday, April 26, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, April 26, at 1:30 p.m.