May 13, 2008              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVI   No. 26


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's proceedings, I wish to advise hon. members and our viewing audience that today's proceedings will be shortened by approximately one hour and a half. At 4:00 o'clock a ceremony will take place right here in this Chamber to unveil the portrait of former Speaker Harvey Hodder.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 10, Mariner Resources Opportunities Network and their partners sponsored Youth Works 2008. The event was held at Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, with participants from Carbonear Collegiate, Carbonear, Baccalieu Collegiate, Old Perlican, and Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown.

Youth Works 2008 was available to youth between the ages of fifteen and eighteen – high school youth – and community youth between the ages of eighteen and thirty.

The project involves assisting participants in facing multiple barriers to employment and obtaining the necessary labour market information to make successful career decisions in order to connect to the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, both displays by local, regional and provincial employers provided a venue to promote their organizations and business and give information on current and future employment opportunities right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating MRON on a very successful event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this great hon. House today to recognize the Arnold's Cove Lions Club on their fortieth anniversary. This club was founded in 1968 by a group of very ambitious men and women, and today it stands as an outstanding statue of volunteerism in the Town of Arnold's Cove.

Lions Clubs are certainly recognized as visions of one of the most outstanding and well-organized charitable organizations originating in the U.S. and has certainly become an international form throughout Canada, starting in the early 1920s. Newfoundland and Labrador has certainly been recognized as one of the leading roles throughout this wealthy organization in volunteerism within the Lions Clubs.

This organization has made a significant impact on the lives of those locally. They have helped in the fundraising for the defibrillator for the fire department of Arnold's Cove - a necessity for the community and surrounding communities, to say the least. This organization has been a supporter of the local Army Cadet Squadron. They have been active supporters in school functions, especially in the scholarship area. They organize seniors' functions, and Arnold's Cove Days and others, all of which shows dedication to the community.

The Arnold's Cove Lions Club has raised $30,000 for the Children's Wish Foundation through the Carol Service during Christmas time. Other charities their club has contributed to include the Purina Dog Walk and the Lions Max Simms Camp. This shows how active their club has been, and their club can certainly be a model for all the other clubs throughout the whole Province.

I ask that my colleagues in this hon. House join me in extending congratulations to the Arnold's Cove Lions Club and wishing them all the success on their fortieth anniversary and in their future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to the volunteer fire brigade of Long Harbour–Mount Arlington Heights.

Recently, I attended an awards ceremony in Long Harbour and was pleased to present long-service awards to several firefighters. Alton Whiffen, Wayne Bruce and Gerard Bruce all received twenty-seven-year awards. Louis Ennis, Frank Ennis and Wayne Rees received twenty-six-year awards. Chesley Temple received a twenty-three-year award.

Mr. Speaker, the number of years of service of these individuals epitomizes what volunteerism is all about. Communities such as Long Harbour and Mount Arlington Heights owe a great debt of gratitude and appreciation to those volunteers. They deserve all the recognition we can give.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, there was a major fire in Long Harbour on Saturday morning and I am advised by the mayor that this committee responded in exemplary fashion and prevented what could have been disastrous results in the community.

I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear of the special licence plate which was just designed for exclusive use by volunteer and career firefighters in this Province. It recognizes the valuable services of firefighters such as those in Long Harbour and Mount Arlington Heights.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Long Harbour–Mount Arlington Heights fire brigade and all those volunteers in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls–Windsor–Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the many talented young people who made the forty-third annual Central Newfoundland Kiwanis Music Festival in Grand Falls-Windsor an overwhelming success again this year.

More than 6,000 contestants from the ages of five years and up delighted audiences with their solo vocal presentations, instrumental performances, choral renditions, musical theatre and so on. The festival in Grand Falls-Windsor is one of only two on the Island that also boasts a solo and choral speech category.

This year's festival required seven adjudicators and accommodated competitors from communities in the Lewisporte area, the Connaigre Peninsula, the great District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, and as far west as the Baie Verte Peninsula.

This festival is successful as well in large part due to the talented music teachers and instructors in our area. The endless hours of practice and support given to our young people is phenomenal.

I would be remiss if I did not commend the Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor for their inspirational dedication and belief in this festival. Since 1961, this festival has had a reputation for hosting a first-class event that is a tribute to the Kiwanis Club and their many supporters as well as the hospitality of the residents of Grand Falls-Windsor.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in offering congratulations to the participants of the forty-third annual Central Newfoundland Kiwanis Music Festival and extend our gratitude to the Kiwanis Club for sponsoring this event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to pay tribute to the nurses across our Province during National Nursing Week, which runs from May 12 to May 18.

Over 8,000 nurses, nurse practitioners and licensed practical nurses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are critical in the provision of quality care to the people of our Province. On behalf of our government, I thank each one of them for the commitment and dedication to the people of the communities in which they serve.

In recognition of its centennial celebrations, the Canadian Nurses Association is reprising its 2007 theme, "Think you know nursing? Take a closer look." This theme serves to raise awareness about the many roles that nurses play in the health and community services system.

Mr. Speaker, you will find nursing professionals in just about every corner of the health and community services system. They are researchers, counsellors, advocates, educators, administrators and developers of policy, just to name a few.

Our government is committed to supporting our workforce of nurses. With an investment of more than $2 million in Budget 2008, we are strengthening our ability to attract and keep qualified nurses living and working in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our incentives include: bursaries for third- and fourth-year nursing students with a one-year return-in-service agreement; relocation allowances to cover 50 per cent of the moving costs; and, signing bonuses for targeted positions.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we are also fulfilling our Blueprint commitment to expand the number of funded seats in the School of Nursing by thirty-six, bringing the total number of seats to 291 which includes seats for the LPN bridging program. This expansion is a strategic one with the goal of positively impacting the supply of nursing graduates in this Province.

These initiatives complement the many other additional actions we have taken, including: funding educational leave for registered nurses; hosting a conference in nursing leadership; approving some $579,000 for 101 bursaries or signing bonuses over the last year; and, hiring 187 new graduates in the last fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, collectively these measures mark a strategic investment by our government that will strengthen our nursing recruitment and retention successes and have a positive impact on the provision of quality care for the people of this Province.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the nursing profession who work in every corner of Newfoundland and Labrador, supporting and protecting the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We certainly want to acknowledge and recognize nurses, LPNs, nurse practitioners, and all of those who work in the nursing profession throughout our Province. We know the vital role that they play, from our hospitals to our clinics to our long-term care facilities.

Mr. Speaker, it has been well known to us this year, we have constantly received complaints about surgeries being cancelled in hospitals, unavailability of bed spaces in ICUs and so on, and a lot of this, Mr. Speaker, contributing to the fact that there is a shortage of nurses in this Province.

In the third quarter, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we were short 440 nurses in this Province, and that is only the vacancies that have been listed for advertisement, not including those positions that often take months and months before they are actually advertised.

Mr. Speaker, I think nurses have picked a fitting theme. The theme that says, "Think you know nursing? Take a closer look." is not by accident. It is an opportunity for all of us to take a closer look and realize that this profession is understaffed, underpaid, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that they are critical to the ongoing health care needs of the people of this Province.

There is no fitter time for government, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge that and to negotiate salaries and benefits, Mr. Speaker, for this profession that are on par with the rest of the country.

In recent days we have seen nursing negotiations in Saskatchewan giving another 27 per cent increase in salaries to nurses in that particular province, making it even more difficult for us to recruit in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her comments.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I conclude my comments by saying to the minister, and to his government, put your money where your mouth is. If you want to recognize the role that nurses play in this Province, go out and do something to enhance the recruitment and stability of the profession in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

I, too, am very happy to pay tribute to the nurses in our Province. We could never have the health care system that we have without them. I think we all are aware of the wonderful work that they do in this Province, and have always done.

I do recognize the things that were put in this year's Budget with regard to recruitment of nurses, but we have to worry about the retention of nurses. That is why I wish that the minister would have put in the reality.

The reality is that we do need better wages. The reality is that we have too many nurses on casual and we need nurses on full time. We have too many nurses that are being called in to do overtime after they have done their shifts; they are still expected to respond to calls for overtime. We have to make sure that all of our facilities have sufficient nurses to do the work that has to be done, and that they can do it proudly knowing that they have permanent jobs, the benefits that they need, and the salaries that they are worth.

Yes, let's take a closer look. All of us have been invited to a breakfast on Thursday morning by the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, at the Fluvarium. I know it is an invitation to the MHA breakfast. I hope that all of us are going to turn up and take a closer look by sitting with a nurse on either side and listening to their story as they talk about the nurse shortage, because that is what the breakfast is about Thursday morning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an employee of the Department of Environment and Conservation who has received international recognition for his conservation efforts. On Friday, Mr. Shane Mahoney, the Executive Director of the Sustainable Development and Strategic Science Division, was named the 2008 International Conservationist of the Year by the Safari Club International Foundation. Mr. Mahoney was presented with this award at a ceremony in Washington, D.C. this past weekend.

This award, Mr. Speaker, recognizes individuals who have dedicated their lives to working on behalf of sportsmen and women. The International Conservationist of the Year is the highest testament to conservation efforts by the Safari Club, and it acknowledges an individual's outstanding conservation achievements. Mr. Mahoney's name, Mr. Speaker, is without a doubt synonymous with conservation efforts in this Province. He has had a distinguished career with the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador and is world-renowned for his research on wildlife populations. He has published numerous scientific articles on the topic, and his expertise is sought by wildlife researchers and conservationists internationally.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2008 allocated $3.3 million as part of the $15.3 million, five-year scientific and management strategy for the island woodland caribou populations. The strategy builds upon earlier efforts to better understand and mitigate the current decline in woodland caribou numbers of 40 per cent to 60 per cent for most herds on the island portion of the Province, as well as the role of predators in this decline. Mr. Mahoney has played a significant role in the development of this strategy, lending his expertise as this government works toward ensuring proper management measures are in place to mitigate the decline.

The Safari Club International, Mr. Speaker, is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. Active in more than 100 countries, this organization focuses on protecting the hunting heritage enjoyed by the more than 45 million families around the globe while, at the same time, understanding the delicate balance that needs to be struck in terms of conserving our wildlife.

I am sure I am joined by all of my hon. colleagues when I say that Mr. Mahoney's efforts are justly recognized by this prestigious award, and I offer my sincerest congratulations.

We are challenged more than ever, Mr. Speaker, to make prudent decisions that shape our environment as we work toward sustaining it. Mr. Mahoney's efforts will undoubtedly remain a legacy in Newfoundland and Labrador as he continues helping us achieve our conservation targets - and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, he is in the gallery today and I wish that all members certainly show their applause for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want begin by thanking the minister for a copy of her statement, and to also offer congratulations to Mr. Mahoney on winning the 2008 International Conservationist of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I guess in my former life as an executive assistant, I had the opportunity from time to time to attend meetings where Mr. Mahoney was - as a matter of fact, I even have some of the charts here. They may be fourteen or fifteen years old, but some of the issues that we discussed at that time.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, the caribou population was at its height, and through this we know, I think, the coyote was introduced here in 1986. This was the conversation we had back at that time - and I know this gentleman has done a tremendous job and we want to congratulate him on that. I have to say, when hearing the minister mention about the $15.3 million, it gives me an opportunity, I guess - she is talking about the money that was in the Budget and I have to say, I think we know because at that time we knew the Martin, the Artic Hare, and the Red Fox, as well as the Caribou, were on a decline from the time the coyote was introduced to our Province, and we seen that today. To know that this amount of money, Mr. Speaker - we stood here last Wednesday trying to come up with a few dollars for home care in our Province, and now we are talking about the Cameron inquiry and about the funds to help those who are going through difficult times.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, yes, we are here to congratulate the gentleman on this wonderful achievement in our Province, but I have to say to the minister, I think the $15 million that we have allocated could have been used in other avenues as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of her statement; I, too, am very happy to stand and congratulate Mr. Shane Mahoney on the award that he received, the 2008 International Conservationist of the Year by the Safari Club International Foundation. I know that Mr. Mahoney's expertise is very useful for our government as it does the work that it does with regard to the maintenance of the herds in our Province, and especially the herd on the Island that we read about here today in the minister's statement.

I stand with mixed feelings because I do recognize Mr. Mahoney's work and I do not want anything else that I am going to say to reflect away from his work but I would hope that the minister would rethink the issues that I have already raised here on the floor with regard to the proposed Mealy Mountain National Park, because maintaining the calving area of that - the area that is being suggested for the park in the national park will be really important for the people in Labrador who have a hunting heritage, a heritage of Aboriginal peoples. I would, once again, ask the government to make sure that they support the original plan for the Mealy Mountain National Park.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge a great loss to Newfoundland and Labrador's visual arts community.

Helen Parsons Shepherd, a local artist known for her commissioned portraits and still life paintings, passed away on Friday, May 9, at the age of eighty-five.

Mrs. Parsons Shepherd was a pioneer in this Province's arts community. Her drive, vision and talent led her to the position of co-founder and operator of the Province's first-ever formal art school, the Newfoundland Academy of Art in St. John's. The school, which opened in 1949, was a joint project between Mrs. Parsons and her husband, the late Reginald Shepherd.

As the first person from this Province to earn a fine arts degree at the Ontario College of Art in 1948, Helen Parsons Shepherd's work consisted of portraits of people from all walks of life, as well as scenes from everyday life, including 1965's Spring in Newfoundland, one of her more well-known works.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Parsons Shepherd's portrait work was in very high demand. She captured perfectly the essence of her subjects, bringing many of this Province's residents to life on canvas.

In fact, she is responsible for seven of the Speaker portraits you see around the House of Assembly today, including the portrait of Speaker Harvey Hodder, which will be unveiled today.

I invite my colleagues to join me in offering condolences to Mrs. Parsons Shepherd's family and friends. She has led the way for many of the Province's aspiring and established artists, and her legacy will continue to live through her work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement today.

Mrs. Shepherd was not personally known to me, but we in the Opposition would certainly agree and would love to pass along condolences to the family of the late Mrs. Shepherd and her friends. I do note, however, that going to Ontario back then must have been a challenge. This lady was indeed a trailblazer when sixty years ago, before we ever were a part of Canada, she undertook to further her interests in Ontario and get her fine arts degree. She certainly was a unique individual in order to do that some-sixty years ago.

We are blessed here in the Chambers, as you say, because we get to look at her work each and every day that the House is sitting.

We would also like to pass along our condolences to the family and friends.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement.

For some reason I have not been reading the papers, and I did not know that Helen Parsons Shepherd had died. So I am really glad to have gotten this notification today because of your statement, because I did know her. I did not know her in later years, but I first met her as a young teenager when one of my friends, one of my very good friends who was an aspiring artist went to the Newfoundland Academy of Art in St. John's - it was on Cochrane Street, actually. Helen Parsons Shepherd was a wonderful woman. I remember how warm she was and as a personality. Another friend and myself used to sit for portraitures for her students, so it is a nice memory to have.

I am very pleased to be able to stand today and to offer my condolences to her family and friends.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier today in the media from Justice John Gomery, one of the most distinguished inquiry heads in Canadian history. Justice Gomery stated that the Premier's characterization of the Cameron inquiry as the Spanish Inquisition conjures images of torture and was very unfair to Justice Cameron. He also felt that comments such as witch hunt and prosecution were also inappropriate.

I ask the Premier: Why would you want to use such inflammatory language against Cameron and the inquiry, in fact, undermining the very process that you set up to restore confidence in our health care system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Actually, Mr. Speaker, the term Spanish Inquisition came from the doctor who was sat next to me at the meeting that we had last week. However, I did fully agree with her comment and had indicated that I personally thought in the same terms.

With regard to the inquiry itself and the purpose of the inquiry, I am totally supportive of it, have been from the start. As you know, we called the inquiry, and as I said yesterday, we have admitted liability when it comes to the issues that are before the inquiry. However, it is in the best interests of the patients and the people in this Province that that inquiry be conducted in a proper manner, expeditiously so that these people can get answers for the problems that they have suffered and that they have incurred, and also to get on with the issue of compensation. As a lawyer, I know that is a long process and it takes some considerable period of time. The quicker that this inquiry is resolved and we get to the heart of it and we get to the bottom of the causes, then that is in the best interest of the patients and, ultimately, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly the Premier referenced the Rules of Procedure and Practice in discussing the Cameron inquiry, and I would like to reference one of those rules. In fact, rule 16, which I am sure the Premier would know, or ought to know, and it states: The conduct of and the procedure to follow in this inquiry are within the control and discretion of the Commissioner.

So knowing this and agreeing to this, I ask the Premier: Why would you even interfere with Justice Cameron's judgement on this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is also a rule, which is rule 18, and also rule 29, which is the basis upon which we have grounded our application. That application is to make sure that the Commission's counsel conducts itself in a proper manner. This is not the first time this has been raised. It was not raised simply by myself and by the Attorney General. In the brief that has actually been filed with the Commissioner today for her consideration, there are examples of other counsels specifically stating that in fact they felt that Commission counsel, Mr. Coffey, was in fact breaching the rules of cross-examination. So, that is there. It is attached to the brief, that brief will be a public document. You are more than welcome to have a look at it and get a legal opinion on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a copy of the rules and procedure. I just ask the Premier: Does it not say that on the consent of the Commissioner that counsel can cross-examine witnesses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Will you take that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, let me quote from - I am not allowed to quote, sorry. Let me paraphrase from a previous report where we talked about the principles that govern the conduct of a public inquiry. They are thoroughness, expedition, openness to the public and fairness. Those are the guiding principles that must apply, and you must never forget that the purpose of an inquiry is to determine what went wrong to determine in this case what happened, how to prevent it from happening in the future and to educate the public. Those are the guiding principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I have no idea how restricting cross-examination by the counsel is going to interfere with that, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have had several inquiries. In fact, the Hughes inquiry, the Ocean Ranger inquiry, the Lamer Inquiry, the Turner inquiry and I am sure there are others, and each of these inquiries use very similar techniques, if not the same, that are currently being used by the Cameron inquiry.

I ask the Premier, again: Why not stay out of the process, and I ask that you withdraw your application in fact limiting questions and allow the inquiry to do its job as was originally intended?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate on the part of the government and on behalf of myself that we are committed to finding the truth in this inquiry. That is what we want. This government called the inquiry; we want to get to the bottom of what happened. However, Mr. Speaker, it must be made clear, I have been involved myself in two major inquiries in the last couple of years, Commission counsel examines. They can in certain circumstances with leave cross-examine. If Mr. Crosbie were cross-examining, there would not be any of these questions arising. The Commission counsel, and as stated in his opening comments, his role is to prevent a full and balanced picture as efficiently as possible.

As the Premier has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we want to get to the bottom of what happened. We want to move on with the compensation process, and we want to ensure fairness for all parties involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The ER-PR testing is one of the biggest tragedies in our health care system in our Province. There is a public inquiry that is ongoing, and, Mr. Speaker, I feel that government is trying to stifle that process and stop the important questions from being answered as part of this inquiry.

I ask you again, minister, Premier: Will you withdraw your application and allow this process to continue as was originally intended?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

We are entitled to have an inquiry conducted in accordance with the proper Rules of Procedure and Practice. My learned friend, the Attorney General, and I have been involved in inquiries before. We have gone through the process; they have to be done by the rules. I repeat again, we called this inquiry. The problems that occurred here did not happen on our watch. They happened while the hon. members opposite were in government. We were saddled with this problem. We are trying to deal with it. We are trying to make sure we get to the bottom of this problem. We fully support the inquiry, but Madam Justice Cameron has set down rules of procedure. What we are simply doing is asking her to clarify her own rules, and as I said yesterday, once she makes her ruling she will have the last word.

This matter, as of today, will be before her. We will not be commenting after today until that ruling is given on the merits of that application.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here we go. The Premier is going to be judge and jury again today as to who is to blame and where the blame comes from, Mr. Speaker. All of those things. I think going out and calling it a witch hunt is hardly a process to be followed in terms of dealing with any part of this inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people out there today, and especially victims, who want to see this inquiry continue and to see it completed. We have heard from the medical association who want to see this inquiry completed, but yet we have no idea if government will grant the appropriate period of time that has been requested or give the resources to have this done.

I ask you again today, Premier, why let the anguish for those people continue, make a decision, will you allow for the resources for Judge Cameron to finish her job?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I stated yesterday inside the House, and I stated it outside the House, we will provide the resources that are necessary. We are asking Judge Cameron to give us an estimate of what her time is going to be, what is going to be involved in dealing with it until February, whatever costs are necessary, whatever expenses are necessary that she needs in order to complete that inquiry accurately will be provided to her. Extensions that are necessary in order for her to complete that in a reasonable manner will be provided to her, provided as well that her own Commission counsel are acting within the scope of her own rules and her own interpretation of those rules. The matter is completely in her hands.

There is an excerpt in the brief which can be read by any member of the press or the public, which has been submitted by us, which talks about the Walkerton Inquiry. In the Walkerton Inquiry, the Ontario Law Firm Commission has commented, the public benefits of an inquiry must be weighed against the cost of interfering with the privacy, the reputation and the legal rights of individuals.

This is about making sure, as I said before, that at the end of the day we have a health care system. We cannot turn around and try and fix a problem in one area and end up with significant damage to the health care system. That is the job that I have been tasked with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the responsibility of the Premier, the Cabinet, and the government, to make sure that at the end of this process we have the answers for the victims and the best possible health care system that we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, we know that Friday past on an Open Line show you came to the defence of the Premier concerning his comments about the Cameron inquiry on Thursday evening. I ask you: Did you have any discussions with the Premier related to this issue before the Premier made his statements Thursday evening?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, let me point out, I did not come to the defence of the Premier. The Premier does not need to be defended. As the Leader of this Province he has the right to make the comments that he sees fit, and far be it for me to tell him what to say or what not to say.

As for my comments on the Open Line show, I made those comments because they needed to be said; they were said, and I maintain them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Maybe the minister now can address the question: Did you have any conversations with the Premier about this Cameron situation before he made his comments about the witch hunt on Thursday evening?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can indicate that I did not know the Premier was meeting with the doctors, so in terms of his comments about the witch hunt, if that is the comment that was used, the first I would have heard about that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, did you say something?

The first comment I would have heard about that would have been that night.

Myself and the Premier discuss matters on a regular basis, especially as it relates to legal issues, and we discussed this issue. In terms of that night, there were discussions as to what took place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mean to be inquisitorial here, or cross-examining, but I ask the minister again: Can the minister tell us if you had any discussions about the process that you are now following under the rules and procedure? Did you have any discussions with the Premier about following that procedure – for example, trying to question the scope and the procedure that is being followed at the Cameron inquiry by Commission counsel - did you have that discussion with the Premier before the Premier made his comments last Thursday in the foyer of this House, concerning the witch hunt?

That is all; it is pretty straightforward.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Pretty straightforward but a little obtuse, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

We had meetings that day. The Cabinet meets on a regular basis. There were discussions, obviously, in Cabinet that I will not get into. Myself and the Premier and other members of the Cabinet and government discuss these matters on a regular basis.

As to an approach to be taken, it was only when he became aware of the concerns of the doctors, if I remember correctly, as expressed to the Premier, and expressed unequivocally to the Premier during that meeting, that the comments by the Premier were made. That is my understanding from discussions with him.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I will paraphrase, because the minister is obviously being evasive.

The Premier and the Justice Minister made their recent public statements without following the proper process as outlined in the Rules of Procedure and Practice of the Cameron inquiry.

I ask the minister: If you were so adamant that questioning should be limited at the inquiry - and the Premier has referenced here again today that it was raised before by someone else at the inquiry – why wasn't Ms Brazil, who showed up yesterday on behalf of the government, why was she not dispatched to the Commission before yesterday morning and before the Premier was out calling it a witch hunt and you were on the Open Line shows agreeing with him?

You have been in possession of these rules since last August. They are published on your Web site. Why did you not follow the rules of procedure, and you only came about after the Premier made his comments?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was only as a result – I was driving to the district on Friday and I listened to the preamble on the Open Line show, and that was when I heard what I would refer to as the inflammatory comments of the Open Line host. As those comments continued throughout the day, and there was misinformation and inaccurate information being put out there, I decided at that point that it was time to address the issue.

There is no magic as to why or when I addressed it. It became an issue on Friday as a result of comments made on the public airwaves. I said then and I say now that the Premier, as the leader of this Province, has every right to make those comments and I support him in that respect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, at least we have now established that this issue of following process under this rules and procedure only came about after the Premier's comments and not before; it was never a consideration by the minister at least.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is also for the minister. At the Lamer Inquiry – there are lots of comparisons back and forth here – the current minister and his law firm was paid over $320,000 in public funds to ensure that justice was properly done.

I ask the minister: Knowing how important it is to drill down into the details when you are at one of these inquiries, why were you suggesting on the Open Lines on Friday that money might be an issue? Why are you putting a price tag on justice?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I say to the Opposition House Leader, that is the kind of stunt that he pulls. That is the kind of misleading information he puts before this House.

Yesterday afternoon, I gave him all of the information of what people had been paid at the inquiry. There were seventeen lawyers. My law firm, I think, was eighth on the list. So, for him to stand up here today and to utilize that kind of comment, again, I would suggest to you, is misleading and it is unbecoming of a member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, the minister is referring to Estimates Committee meetings which happened yesterday and I did ask him if could give me a breakdown of who was paid what at the Lamer Inquiry, as I have asked the same for the Cameron inquiry and he did give me the list.

By the way, he might have given me his law firm as number fifteen, but they were not the fifteenth-lowest paid. I do believe he was in the top third or fourth ranking, if he wants to get into how much money was spent. Anyway, that is aside from the point.

My next question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems like I struck a raw cord here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Member for The Straits & White Bay North might want to stand, if he has a question, but right now I think I have the floor, based on yourself.

My question is to the Attorney General. Minster, I submit that your comments last Friday – I said this on Open Line, following your comments – inappropriately interfered in the judicial process.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the member to pose his question.

MR. PARSONS: I ask the minister: In your capacity as Attorney General, will you cease and desist from commentary on the Cameron inquiry, follow the law, and let the Commission do its job?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The lecturing ethics come from the man who said: If you make me a judge, my son will run for you in my district. Now, there you go! That is what we are dealing with over there, Sir.

What happened in the Lamer Inquiry, Mr. Speaker, so that you are aware: the numbers have been broken down and have been provided. There was $1 million in fees provided by lawyers representing the police. There was $950,000 in fees provided for lawyers representing Crown counsel including Mr. Bernard Coffey, and there was $550,000 provided to counsel representing the wrongfully convicted.

There you go, Mr. Speaker. Why doesn't he put the full picture before? Because he doesn't have it in him, that is why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education, and they are regarding a serious matter of possible criminal misappropriation of funds from this Province under the International Student Education Program.

I ask the minister: When did you, as the minister, and your department first become aware of this matter and who brought it to your attention?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the matter, not in particular detail but through an official with the Department of Education. At that time I was advised that there were some issues. The board handled the issues, had legal counsel, dealt with the collective agreement and made their decision. I got further information on August 30, 2007.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I ask the minister: Did the school board at the time raise the issue with you at all?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it was raised to the Department of Education through the school board through the Assistant Deputy Minister in March of 2007. It was through the Assistant Deputy Minister in March of 2007 that I was advised that an employee had been investigated. The board, at that time, sought legal counsel, had followed the collective agreement and the employee was no longer working with the board. That was the information I received in March of 2007.

On August 30, 2007, I received an envelope of documents in relation to some issues with that particular program. That evening I contacted the person who sent that information to government and I arranged a meeting for September 6, 2007. It was on that day that I met with Ms Lisa O'Neill who was the agent who had submitted that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, when the school board raised this with your deputy minister, I think you said, or ADM, at that particular time were there any discussions between yourself and the school board, and who would have been representing the school board in those discussions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at that time I had no direct conversations with the school board over this matter. I talked with the Assistant Deputy Minister. At that time, just based on the information, I felt it should be turned over to the police. However, I was advised that the board had sought legal counsel on this matter. We are dealing with it in terms of the collective agreement and that the individual was no longer working with the school boards. So I was advised that the school board, having been tasked with the operations of the school and HR issues, had dealt with the matter through their own legal recourse at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Did you seek any direction from the Department of Justice knowing this was a potential criminal matter and there was a misappropriation of funds? Was there any direction sought by the Department of Justice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when I received the documents on August 30, 2007, I asked that the police be contacted. I was advised by the officials that they were going to seek advice from the Department of Justice as to how we should proceed. The information was shared with the Department of Justice and at that time it was determined that the board had the responsibility to deal with the issues and had dealt with it through the appropriate means. I was not satisfied with that response. In November of 2007, I again approached officials in the Department of Justice regarding their opinion and felt I was not necessarily comfortable with that opinion. I further requested that the information - that the police be advised that we had this information and if they required a copy of it or anything that they should contact the department. So, Mr. Speaker, I personally felt that the information should be turned over to the police and it was done so in November.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, by November the minister knows that the lady who disclosed this information to her department and to the school board had then flown halfway around the world and reported it to the police herself.

I ask you minister, when you said you gave direction back in August to go to the police, who did you direct and why was it not followed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at that time I spoke with some officials in the Department of Education who felt the proper procedure for them to follow was to consult with the Department of Justice, which they did. They reported back to me and they also wrote Ms Lisa O'Neil at that time and I certainly understand the opinion that I was given. However, I did not necessarily feel it was the appropriate decision at that time, and I met with Justice again and I further requested that we write the RNC and turn the matter over to the police.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it did not matter to me where Lisa O'Neil was at the time. That was certainly not even a consideration. Had she been in the Province or had been in Korea, I still felt that we had this information in our possession and it needed to be turned over to the police.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I would like to ask the minister to Table the letters that were circulated between your department and the Department of Justice, and your department and the school board on this matter, the one's you just referred to.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, any information that we have in relation to that we will certainly Table in the House. As a matter of fact, I may have some of it with me here today, but I will certainly make sure that we go through, look at what correspondence was there, and make sure a copy is provided to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, going back to March when the school board was advised and met with officials in your department, minister, why were you not asking questions and directing the school board at that time to take this matter to the police? It was known, very early on, that it was a potential criminal investigation. Why were those directions not given, going back as early as March?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at the time in March, 2007, I was advised by the school board, and of course the school board can certainly speak to their actions - but I was advised at the time that they had the information, that they had sought legal counsel, they were following the collective agreement, they brought the matter to the trustees, and they made a decision. So I was assured that the issue was being addressed, they had sought legal counsel at the time, and that they were dealing with the issue. It was an operational matter, an HR issue that was within the board's domain at that time. At that time, as well, I did not have any details, nor had I spoken with the agent, the person who I spoke with on September 6 - but in March of 2007, I was assured that the board had dealt with the matter appropriately through the recourse that they had available.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are about the Cameron inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Cameron inquiry is asking tough questions is not what will ruin our health care system. Inadequate investment in health care has done more to damage our system than will two lawyers asking tough questions that witnesses may not want to answer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, if he is prepared to invest whatever money is needed for the work of the inquiry and also to address the recommendations that come out of the inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am going to careful. We cannot write a blank cheque for anything that happens to be requested. I can certainly tell you though that you have my assurance, you have the assurance of Cabinet and the Minister of Health that we will do whatever we can to implement all reasonable recommendations that come out from the inquiry. I would suggest to you that we can probably do 100 per cent of those, but I have not seen them, I do not know them. It would irresponsible for me to even suggest right now that we could cover them off.

Having said that, the inquiry is there for a purpose, it is there to make recommendations. When we see those recommendations, we will certainly take them under very serious advisement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Expecting that Justice Cameron will be a reasonable Commissioner, as I really believe she is, and expecting that whatever request may be made from where time will be, within reason, will the Premier commit that adequate money will be there for the Commission to finish its work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


I have said that in a question that was asked before by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that we are there to make sure that the Commission does get the time to do its work, it does get the resources that are available to do its work. We have indicated that right from the start. Again, it comes back to the question of responsibility and accountability. We do have a proposed budget in now from the Commissioner seeking an extension to February, 2009. We are going back and asking questions just about that budget to make sure we have complete clarification on whatever expenditures are there, but we will make sure that the Commissioner has the time to conduct her inquiry properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 7, the Premier was chastising the Opposition about their questions on the inquiry and he said that the inquiry should be allowed to go its full process so that conclusions are drawn from all the evidence and not just parts of it.

Mr. Speaker, in order to give the public an assurance that we have the best system available, we need to get to the bottom of what happened with the ER-PR testing.

I ask the Premier: Will he allow the inquiry to proceed without the added stress of the Premier intervening publicly with regard to the work of the inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the heavy burden and heavy responsibly, as does my Cabinet, of making sure that the health care system in this Province is the very best possible health care system that we can deliver. Our minister, this year, and the Minister of Finance in our Budget, increased health care expenditures to $2.3 billion. We have increased it by $400,000. We are replacing long-term care facilities. We are building on to hospitals. We are building new hospitals, putting new drugs in place. We are providing more money for human resources. We will continue to do that. We are meeting this week with the oncologists and the pathologists, to make sure that we specifically address this problem, but we have to do it all within reason and all with the balance of the responsibilities that we have to a government, to provide social assistance, to provide education, to try and grow our infrastructure in the Province, to try and grow our economy in the Province, and it all has to be done within that real balance.

I can tell you, we take that responsibility very, very seriously and we want to make sure that at the end of this process we deliver the best possible health care that we can for the resources that we have available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The time for questions and answers has expired.

The Chair would like to just raise a couple of points that came from Question Period today. The Chair is reluctant to interrupt when things happen during the asking of questions or the answering of questions.

The Chair would like to remind the hon. member, the hon. the Opposition House Leader, that asking repetitious questions is certainly unparliamentary. The question should be asked, and it is up to the minister to answer the question, but to ask the same question repetitiously is certainly unparliamentary.

The Chair has ruled in the past about unparliamentary language in the House. The Chair has ruled that misled, or the Opposition House Leader misled, or information was misleading, that is certainly unparliamentary and I would like to ask the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General if he would withdraw that remark.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first, when I look at the information that was provided –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked the hon. Minister of Justice to withdraw the term misleading or misled, and I ask the hon. minister to do it without explanation and to do it now.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: I withdraw the comments, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee of the House of Assembly on Privileges and Elections has been charged by the Speaker of this House, under subsection 35(1) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee of the House of Assembly on Privileges and Elections has been charged by the Speaker of this House, under subsection 35(1) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, with developing a Code of Conduct for members.

As Chair of that Committee, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present the report respecting a Code of Conduct for the hon. members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS under subsection 35(1) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act the Speaker referred to the Standing Committee of the House of Assembly on Privileges and Elections the responsibility for developing and proposing to this House of Assembly a Code of Conduct to assist members in the discharge of their obligations to the House of Assembly, constituents and the public at large; and

WHEREAS the Standing Committee of the House of Assembly on Privileges and Elections has met, considered and reached an agreement on a Code of Conduct to apply to all Members of the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly, for the purposes of section 35 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act and for the benefit of the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador, adopt the following Code of Conduct:

Commitments:

Members of this House of Assembly recognize that we are responsible to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and will responsibly execute our official duties in order to promote the human, environmental and economic welfare of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Members of this House of Assembly respect the law and the institution of the Legislature and acknowledge our need to maintain the public trust placed in us by performing our duties with accessibility, accountability, courtesy, honesty and integrity.

Principles:

1. Members shall inform themselves of and shall conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, the Elections Act, 1991, the House of Assembly Act and this Code of Conduct and shall ensure that their conduct does not bring the integrity of their office or the House of Assembly into disrepute.

2. It is a fundamental objective of public office to serve our fellow citizens with integrity in order to improve the economic and social conditions of the people of the Province.

3. We reject political corruption and will refuse to participate in unethical political practices which tend to undermine the democratic traditions of our Province and its institutions.

4. Members will act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest public scrutiny. Neither the law nor this Code of Conduct is designed to be exhaustive and there will be occasions on which members will find it necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the public interest and to enhance public confidence and trust.

5. Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their offices.

6. Members will carry out their official duties and arrange their private financial affairs in a manner that protects the public interest and enhances public confidence and trust in government, and in high standards of ethical conduct in public office.

7. Members will base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest that are individually responsible for preventing conflicts of interest which they will endeavour to prevent from arising and members will take all reasonable steps to resolve any such conflict quickly and in a manner which is in the best interest of the public.

8. In performing their official duties, members will apply public resources prudently and only for the purposes for which they are intended.

9. Members will not use official information which is not in the public domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of our official duties, for personal gain or the personal gain of others.

10. Relationships between members and government employees should be professional and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of those employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out their duties.

11. Members should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

12. This Code of Conduct has a continuing effect except as amended or rescinded by Resolution of the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to bring, again, a petition concerning the need for a Province-wide 911 system. I will not read the prayer, since it is now on record when I first presented this petition last week, but once again I bring the petition with hundreds of signatures.

I noticed in the Advertiser from Grand Falls-Windsor this week that the latest call for a Province-wide 911 system comes from the Fire Chief of the Grand Falls-Windsor Fire Department, who speaks very eloquently about how lives will be saved and how lives sometimes are not saved because of not having a Province-wide 911 system.

It is a wonderful opportunity to stand and present the petition, because good things happen because of that. I have noticed recently, as of this morning actually, because of raising the issue here in the House and also because of speaking to a statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs the other day, that the parties responsible for the Web site on the Violence Prevention Initiative picked up on what I said here in the House – and I am glad to know that what we say is paid attention to – and the home page of the Violence Prevention Initiative now has accurate information on it. It does say for emergency dial 911, available at the moment only in the St. John's and the Corner Brook region. So I really thank the minister responsible for hearing what I said and for making sure that the correction got made on the Web site. As I said, it is good to know that when we speak it is being listened to.

I have heard what the minister has been saying, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We have had conversations across the floor and we have talked about it too in the Estimates meeting. I am glad that the Province has finally attended an Atlantic province-wide meeting on 911, but I still urge the minister to speed up the process. There is a lot of experience out there that we can learn from. While I know there are details that we have to work out here in our own Province, that the minister's ministry working in close collaboration with municipalities should be able to speed up the process, especially around the information of how to identify roads and laneways and that kind of thing. I know it is difficult, but it has been done in other places and it can be done here. What I would like to see is for the minister to set up a special committee dedicated to nothing else but getting the 911 set up and for that committee to work with municipalities and stakeholders.

I am really pleased to stand here as the voice for over 50,000 people who signed the petitions that I am presenting. They are very pleased to know that this issue is being brought to the House and they are also pleased to know that government is indicating that it is hearing, but in their name, I once again ask for the process to be done expediently as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to send another petition on behalf of the residents of Pouch Cove, Flat Rock, Torbay, Middle Cove and the Bauline area in relation to the proposed Torbay Bypass road. They have some major concerns when it comes to the safety and the congestion of the traffic in that area and they are asking all members of the House to urge government to reconsider the route.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, the issue that they are involved with is the - apparently two kilometres of this proposed road will go right through the Town of Torbay, turning it into a five-lane highway. That is one of the major concerns that they have. They would like for it to start at the entrance to the boundaries of St. John's and bypass the town altogether. Many people got together at a public meeting recently and discussed this issue.

It was only today I received a letter from a resident in Torbay itself on a different topic altogether, and their concerns about the environmental study, the damage that they feel will be done to the wetlands and the wildlife in that area for that proposed road.

Mr. Speaker, we are calling upon government to take another look at this. I know the issues that they are saying is because of the possible extension to an airport and the terrain of the land and also the watershed area, but those people believe that there are other incidents in the immediate area around the city and this area that those issues are just as prevalent as they are in this one.

On behalf of the residents, I once again ask the government to reconsider this proposed road, the route of it, and ask government to take that into consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Motion 3, first reading of Bill 32, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, first reading of that particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, Bill 32, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 32 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act," carried. (Bill 32)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 32 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call Motion 1, the Budget Speech, That this House Approves In General The Budgetary Policy Of The Government.

I believe that the hon. the Member for Lewisporte is prepared to take part in the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed an honour to stand in the House today to speak on Budget 2008. I still get a little bit of jitters standing in the House. It is something I look forward to doing but I am not quite as accomplished as the Deputy Premier. He can get up in this House and speak for, last week, sixty minutes. I was sitting behind him and all I saw were two little sticky yellow tabs of notes in front of him. I am not quite as accomplished as that.

In my last speech I remarked on something as I was concluding my maiden speech. I said that this government does their research and they listen to the people. That is what I want to speak on today. I want to take a few minutes to talk about a government that listens. In reflecting on this, Mr. Speaker, I decided and started to think about something, and I want to share a little personal perspective.

Since entering politics six, seven months ago, a lot of people come up to you and they will ask you questions like: How are you enjoying it? One question that has sort of come to my attention several times is the question: Why did you enter politics? I reflected on this in the last little while, and there are a couple of things that came to my mind. One thing I had to ask myself, I guess, and some people have asked me: Did you get in it for the money? Well, I thought about that: Did I get in it for the money? Well, I had twenty-two years of experience in education. I was a school principal and sort of gotten up to the levels you could climb, I suppose, in the financial ladder of success in education. Doing the calculations, I think it is about, in terms of take home pay, $300 or $400 a month that I am getting by doing this job over what I was getting before. I really can say it was not for the money. Even though I will take every cent I can get, it was not for the money.

Another question that people ask and I have reflected on: Well, did you get in there for the power? Again, when I think about the power that I have as a Member for Lewisporte District and I think about that, I said: well, really the only power I have is the power to serve, the power to serve the people. The only power I have really is what the people have given me as they have elected me to be their member. Those same people can remove that power in the next election if they wanted to, so the power that one gets from being a member can be short lived. I would also argue, if that is a reason for being there then I would think it would make me very ineffective.

There are all kinds of reasons, I suppose, I might give as to why I did not get into politics. I have to say that I am being totally honest when I say I got into this position because I really did believe that I could make a difference for the people in my district, and I really do believe that once I leave this office, whenever it is, that my district would be better served because I was there. I believe that, and that I why I am in here.

That brings me back to what I said; I was going to talk about a government that listens. I ran for the political Conservative Party under the leadership of our current Premier because I believe they had set a record and a standard of listening to people. If we are working for a government that listens to people then we who are members of this House have the ability to influence what happens, and as the people tell us their issues we bring them forward to a government that listens, and therefore we are doing a noble job. I think the ability for all of us to influence what happens as members is there because the government does listen.

Now, enough philosophizing; I am going to move from that now to sort of give the proof. On February 18, 2008, I went to Gander in the afternoon to the pre-Budget consultation meetings. The Minister of Finance was there with his officials. In the evening I went to Grand Falls-Windsor to listen to pre-Budget consultations again, on the same day.

I have to say, I was really impressed with the atmosphere that was created in these meetings. The Minister of Finance introduced himself and the officials around the table, and talked a little bit about the Budget and where we are going as a Province and why he was doing the consultations. His demeanour created an atmosphere in the room that I would argue was welcoming. People felt comfortable; there was not an air of intimidation. The people who came to present felt comfortable in doing it, and I thank the Minister of Finance for that. His gentle approach with people, his honest, up-front manner created an atmosphere where people felt comfortable contributing. I remarked to one person that the Minster of Finance reminded me something of a gentle giant – very, very gentle in his approach - and that was quite welcome.

The debt clock was there. During the consultations we heard about the debt clock. Some people in the media were saying do away with it, and some were saying it is a good thing, but I watched it and to me it was fascinating because I saw these thousands of dollars clicking up on this clock, by the minute. It was a real eye-opener, and that was a good thing, because it showed us how much money we are spending on an hourly basis to service our debt.

Of course, I said, well, if we can cut down the debt, what will happen is we will slow down that clock. Mr. Speaker, I would love to be in this House, still a Member for Lewisporte District, when that clock stops. That will be a great day, I think, if we can ever get that debt clock to finally stop; because, once we do, hundreds of millions of dollars every year we will have to improve health care, to improve social programs, to further cement our position of prominence in this country and in our world; and, of course, that will improve the lives of our citizens for years and years, and forever. So it is nice to see that this debt clock is slowing down, and I look forward to the day when indeed it will stop.

At the Budget consultation hearings, I heard lots of stuff. I will tell you what I did hear. One of the things I heard people say is that they would like to see the debt reduced. What happened in the Budget? Did the government listen? I would say yes, the government listened. As a matter of fact, I was reading in one of the financial reports from the Department of Finance, in the Budget, that said by the end of this current fiscal year our debt will be reduced from $11.9 billion to $10 billion. Significant. Significant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Another thing I heard at the consultation hearings, there were representatives there from the different municipalities in Central Newfoundland and I heard them ask for increased funding for their municipalities.

It was only a couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of attending sort of a press release, a pre-Budget announcement if you wish, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced a great new cost-shared funding arrangement for municipalities; an arrangement which will see our smaller areas, of which all but one town in my district will come under, a ninety-ten cost-shared arrangement for infrastructure and capital projects, 10 per cent. Ten percent is what these municipalities will have to come up with.

So, again, when I go back to the pre-Budget consultations and I listen to our municipal leaders asking for increased funding, the government listened. We listened, because we are a government that listens.

Another thing I heard, there was a plea for the government to reduce the tax on insurance - to reduce it - and what happened in the Budget again, Mr. Speaker? We eliminated the tax on insurance. It is gone, at a cost of $94 million this year and some $75 million a year as we go forward.

I looked at my own insurance. You know, I have a couple of vehicles, and my daughter has a vehicle, and a house. I added it up and, for me personally, I am saving about $500 a year in insurance tax. People across this Province are saving hundreds of dollars in insurance tax, and our businesses, indeed, if you are looking at some of the fisherpeople and people with their own trucks and that, they are saving thousands of dollars every year in insurance. It is money in their pockets, and again I will say it is because we have a government that listens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Our Premier said that the Minister of Finance heard this everywhere he went and the Minister of Finance, with the Premier and the government, acted.

As I attended the meetings in Gander and then out in Grand Falls-Windsor, there were presentations about an MRI machine coming, and wanting an MRI machine for Central Newfoundland; again a great piece of equipment that will help to service the medical needs of all of the people out in Central Newfoundland. What happened in the Budget again? We have an MRI machine announced for Central Newfoundland. Great stuff! Great stuff!

I heard someone ask about the cost of registering a motor vehicle, $180, saying it needed to be reduced. Again, what happened in the Budget? A government that listens, and we reduced it.

Outside of the Budget consultations, I will say, Mr. Speaker, my experience in my professional life has been in the field of education. As an educator, consulting and listening to parents, students, fellow teachers, school board officials, et cetera, over the years I have heard issues raised in the field of education. I am sure that those same issues have risen in the ranks to the Department of Education and to the minister and government.

Before coming in here I was a school principal and in recent years I actually served as the President of the provincial School Administrator's Council. It is a branch of the NLTA, but it basically advocates for school administrators in the Province. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that one thing I have found too, is that I believe our school administrators are very busy people. They are the people who bear the responsibility of ensuring that their schools are open in September and a schedule is in place, a schedule that provides for maximum educational opportunity for our students. They are the people who manage the disciplinary concerns, including fair and open communication with the homes. They are the ones who ensure that the school board and departmental policies are communicated and followed. They are the first called in case of emergency. They are the people who evaluate teachers. They ensure proper supervision and make sure the school is a safe and caring place.

One of the tasks that school administrators would like to be more involved with is this whole area of instructional leadership for teachers. Unfortunately, it is one of the duties that has been left on the back burner for some time, because there were more immediate and pressing issues that had to be addressed. With the provision of additional administrative time to our schools, it will be possible to meet some of these instructional leadership needs. Our school administrators, our principals and our vice-principals will have more time to dedicate to instructional leadership. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, that is a good thing, that is a great thing. This improvement has come about because this Minister of Education and this government has listened as people have brought their needs forward, and again we have an improvement that has come about because the government listens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Another thing that I have listened to in my experience as an educator - I have often heard teachers and school board people talk about the manner in which we allocate teachers in the Province. It was done pretty well by a numerical formula, and what happened sometimes is that the numbers did not quite add up in schools and the numerical formula did not work the way we wanted it to.

Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Education - I had the privilege of hearing him again - made an announcement regarding the adoption of a new teacher allocation formula. That formula will assign teachers now on the basis of student need as opposed to district-wide numbers. It is an example of a decision, I would argue, that will impact the students of our Province in a very direct manner. It is my experience, Mr. Speaker, that nothing impacts a student's education like the teacher you put in the classroom. Capping class size will ensure teachers now have a class of students that they can manage, and more importantly, a number who they can build relationships with. It will allow teachers, especially those at the younger grades where the homeroom concept is very widespread, it will allow them to more adequately address and care for the emotional needs of children. It is these needs that I think are very important to meet because sometimes they stand in the way of fully addressing the academic needs.

I will give you an example. A couple of years ago I was principal of a K-12 school and I had a group of students in one grade on the primary elementary level, one grade of about thirty-two or thirty-three and another grade, the same number, thirty-one, thirty-two. The formula provided for me, as principal, to assign one point five teachers per grade. Now, how do I assign one point five teachers per grade? Well, I had to make a decision. Either I would, in one grade, put all of the students together for morning classes maybe, let them separate into two different groups for afternoon classes. I could have done that in both grades, but I looked at both classes. Anyway, I made a decision. In the first grade I would put two teachers and in the other grade I would put one teacher. What happened was that as the year progressed we had students transfer in to the other grade and that class swelled to thirty-five or thirty-six, and it was a bit too late at that point in time to do anything about it.

I share that story for this reason only, because under the new way of allocating teachers that this minister has announced, I would not have to make that decision now because at that level, with that number of students, there would actually be two teachers per grade allocated. That is great, it is wonderful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his comments.

MR. VERGE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing that I - again, sticking with education just for another minute. One of the issues that parents and students and teachers, the whole gamut in education have talked about the whole issue of secretarial time in schools and some of the smaller schools did not have quite enough hours it was felt, and talking about the demands of a school secretary and the fact that it would be nice to have somebody on the front desk when people come in and visitors come in. I have heard it at principal's meetings for years. I was very pleased when, again I saw this Budget, and it was announced in the Budget that $1 million is being allocated to more fully address that need in the upcoming year. Again, Mr. Speaker, I say that that happened because the Minister of Education, this government listened and they made improvements, and I believe that we will continue to listen, Mr. Speaker, as the needs continue to arise.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, with saying this, that while I stand here as a new member and proud to be here, happy to be in this new role, I can say without fear of being contradicted, that this job is enjoyable and I believe that this government listens to the people and we have made progress. We have made a lot of progress. I do not stand here naively and say that there are no problems left to be addressed in this Province. Sure there are issues. There will always be issues that we will deal with. I can also safely say that as long as we stay the course, we operate good fiscal management, we keep servicing our debt and we keep listening to the people, that more and more needs will be addressed. We will solve more and more of the problems as we move forward. What will happen is that our standard of living will rise. Our attitudes will rise and people will be taking greater and greater pride in living in this Province.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good afternoon. I am very pleased to rise in this House this afternoon to speak for just a few minutes and take part in this Budget Debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an incredibly historic Budget for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for this reason I am very proud to stand in this House on behalf of our government and talk about some of the great things that are happening in this Province as a result of this most recent budget.

It is a special day in this House, actually, Mr. Speaker, because my predecessor in the House of Assembly, the former Speaker, Mr. Harvey Hodder, will be hanged later this afternoon, as his portrait will be proudly displayed on the walls of this great House. So, I am pleased to get a chance to speak in this House today just prior to that significant event, and I am very pleased that I will be able to be here with my colleagues to celebrate with him.

Mr. Speaker, in talking about this recent Budget, I think it is important to look at the financial performance of the Province over the last year. With the provincial surplus of over $1 billion, there is no mistaking the obvious economic prosperity that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is great wealth here. We are wealthy as a people, we are wealthy as a Province, and beyond that wealth I think that such a surplus is indicative of the sound fiscal management that this government has brought to our Province over the last four-plus years.

Another interesting note about the economic performance of our Province relates to - not out-migration, but in-migration. In fact, we had a net of almost 2,000 people in the last half of 2007 come back to Newfoundland and Labrador. Our population is actually on the increase, which is quite encouraging. I think that is a sign of the kind of prosperity that is taking place here. It is a sign of the growth of our Province, both economically and socially, and I think it is great news and a sign of great things to come in this Province.

I would now like to speak for a few minutes on some of the budget highlights from my perspective, some things that directly impact just about every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, but, in particular, people in the district that I represent, in Mount Pearl North.

I was very pleased to see further income tax cuts. It was not something I necessarily expected to see after the cuts that took place last year, but I was delighted to see a further cut to income tax rates in the Province. We have gone from having among the worst in the country to being among the best in the country, and I think that is significant for each and every citizen in our Province.

This latest cut will put $75 million back in the pockets of taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. That will strengthen the economy in each and every community in this Province. So regardless of your income, regardless of your own personal wealth, that kind of investment back in the economy will mean good things for all of our communities, which I think is very positive.

Like most people, I was delighted to see the insurance tax eliminated. As I was knocking on doors back in the fall, it was an issue that many constituents raised with me, and I was pleased to say, as the Member for Lewisporte pointed out, that this government is listening and that concerns such as this have been addressed even in this year's Budget.

Like most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I was pleased to see motor vehicle registration fees going down from $180 to $140 effective May 1. This is a $10 million annual benefit for the people of our Province, which indeed is good news.

Like the Member for Lewisporte, who spoke just a moment ago, I was incredibly pleased with the investments in education in this Province. The total budget for education increased by another $70 million this year, bringing the budget up to $1.1 billion. That is a significant investment in education.

I was pleased to see $500,000 allocated for additional funding to school districts for substitute leave, which I have heard from teachers in my district is a concern, and I am pleased to see that concern continue to be addressed. I think the most significant thing is that, despite the fact that over the years the population of our Province has fallen, this government, year after year, has put more money into education and put more teachers in our schools, and once again this year we are seeing that kind of leadership and that kind of visionary thinking which is great to see.

In particular, in terms of my district, I was pleased to see $89 million in the Budget for new school construction which will directly impact families that I represent, particularly in the Elizabeth Park neighbourhood in the Town of Paradise. There are going to be a couple of new schools built in Paradise over the next couple of years, and an expansion to Holy Family School as well. So that is great news for the many young families that I represent in the Town of Paradise.

As someone who graduated from post-secondary education only a few years ago, I was delighted to see the tuition freeze at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic continue. This is requiring a considerable investment on behalf of government of $56 million over four years. Over 25,000 students will benefit from the continued tuition freeze at Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic, and this will mean more money in the economy as well and less debt for students which is great news for post-secondary students across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, a new initiative that was announced in this Budget is the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy. Bringing young people back to this Province, and keeping young people in this Province, is something that I have always been very passionate about. Even as a high school student, Mr. Speaker, I remember my guidance counsellor at high school talking to me about all the great universities that exist in Ontario and Quebec and Nova Scotia and elsewhere. I made the decision to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and attend Memorial University, and I quickly discovered that it is among the best post-secondary institutions in the country and our young people, even in terms of pursuing post-secondary education, certainly do not need to leave this Province to pursue those opportunities. I think the government's commitment this year of $1.38 million for a Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy will mean good things for young people in our Province. It will allow more students and more young people in our communities to pursue opportunities here, so I hope that I will be able to contribute to that initiative over the year ahead.

In addition to that commitment, Mr. Speaker, $5.3 million was set aside for Opportunities Newfoundland and Labrador, to inform students and job seekers about existing opportunities and about emergent opportunities here in this Province, training in career supports, and also to highlight the many benefits of working in this Province. That is good news for young people, and if our communities are going to remain strong and vibrant then we do need to keep our young people here. This government recognizes that for sure.

There is also money being spent on recruitment fairs and other recruitment initiatives right across the Province, which I think will mean good things for all of our communities and for business as well.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we witnessed one of the biggest and best infrastructure announcements in the history of our Province. As someone who has a background in municipal government, I fully understood the significance of the announcement that was recently made and how it will impact our communities. We are talking about a commitment of over $673 million for infrastructure, increasing the six-year investment to more than $3 billion. Three billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. That means significant investment in each and every community, practically, in Newfoundland and Labrador. The new cost-sharing program for municipalities is like nothing we have ever seen. It is going to mean, in the communities I represent, in Mount Pearl and Paradise, it is going to mean more money for roads, for water and sewer infrastructure, for new recreational facilities, for expansion to recreational facilities. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars over the next few years for those two municipalities alone. I want to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for introducing an infrastructure program that is going to benefit all of our districts, and it is certainly going to be of great benefit to the district that I represent as well.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, this Budget set aside $182 million in road improvements, including $73 million for the Provincial Roads Improvement Program. I think, as community leaders and as provincial leaders, we recognize that we have to have the foundation in place. If we are going to generate economic growth in all communities in this Province, we have to have the infrastructure in place, and this government has demonstrated a commitment like no other to that objective.

Mr. Speaker, staying on the topic of municipal government for just a moment, I was pleased to see a commitment to regional co-operation in this Budget as well. One million dollars has been set aside to help municipalities eliminate barriers to regional co-operation, and I think that is really positive. There is also funding in the Budget for a five-year pilot project to explore regional governance models and explore the delivery of municipal services over a broad geographic area. I commend the minister for those new visionary initiatives as well.

I can speak to that personally, because I believe that one of the best examples of regional cooperation anywhere in this Province, and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, anywhere in this country, is right here in the Northeast Avalon region. Despite some of the rhetoric, we have communities right here, the two cities, the towns that surround the two cities, working cooperatively on many fronts to deliver municipal services. In fact, one of the best examples of that kind of cooperation is right here. Hopefully, other communities can learn from some of the experiences of communities in this region.

Mr. Speaker, as a young person I am very concerned about our environment and protecting our natural environment. We have a lot of reasons to take great pride in the natural environment that we all enjoy here in Newfoundland and Labrador. One announcement in the Budget that I was particularly pleased to see was a $2 million commitment over three years for the Newfoundland and Labrador Green Fund. It includes climate change initiatives and energy efficiency initiatives which can affect virtually every citizen in the Province. We do need to be concerned about climate change. Living on an Island in the North Atlantic we definitely have reason to pay attention to the climate change issue. I am pleased to see that it is an important priority on government's agenda and that steps are being taken to make advancements in that area as well.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our natural resources the Budget commitments are practically endless. It was amazing to see such a strong commitment to the responsible development of our natural resources in this recent Budget. The Budget expands on the Province's energy plan commitment. There is a $215 million investment for the energy corporation to support the financing required for major projects that are on the horizon; an investment in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to improve the company's financial profile which will bode well for the future; and an investment in site maintenance and upgrades at the Bull Arm Site to ensure that that facility remains vital and important as an economic driver in this Province.

One initiative that relates to the energy plan that I think is also significant from an environmental perspective is a $4.5 million investment in the Ramea Wind-Hydrogen power generation demonstration project. That will result in the purchase of two or perhaps three wind turbines. Wind energy is perhaps the way of the future and something that I am very pleased to see our government investing in as well. Mr. Speaker, the continued development of our energy plan, I think will bode well for the future of this Province.

Another area of our provincial developmental that I am quite passionate about is tourism marketing. We have made incredible strides over the last four-and-one-half-years as a result of the work of this government. We have received many, many awards, as I have spoken about in the past in this House, as a result of our tourism marketing campaigns and our efforts.

In the tourism budget this year I certainly applaud the minister for committing another $100,000 to maintain the East Coast Trails Network, which certainly impacts people in my district. While the trail itself is not in my district, many of the residents who I represent certainly do take the opportunity to enjoy the Trails Network. I think it is an important part of the tourism infrastructure that we have in place in this Province and particularly in this region.

I was pleased to see additional funds in this Budget dedicated to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council. I believe we have a unique, a vibrant and an incredible culture here that is worth preserving. It is worth promoting, it is worth investing in and it is certainly worth celebrating. For that reason, I am pleased to see government meet its commitment to double the budget for the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council over three years.

Mr. Speaker, the North Atlantic Fiddle Convention is coming up in our Province, and $250,000 was dedicated in this Budget assisting with that effort, and with other awards programs like the East Coast Music Awards, and with other special events that bring visitors and economic activity to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, during Volunteer Week I had the opportunity to introduce a motion in this House which was passed unanimously, to recognize the importance of our volunteers and to recognize the contribution of our volunteers. I was pleased in this Budget to see $650,000 allocated to the Office of the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector. In discussions with the minister, I know he is very committed to getting out and meeting with representatives from the voluntary sector to ensure that this new office really has teeth and really makes a difference in terms of engaging the sector and working collaboratively with the voluntary sector to move initiatives forward. I certainly hope that I can be of some help and some support to the minister in that effort.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues in government have spoken about the Province's Poverty Reduction Strategy. In this Budget alone, we saw an investment of $12 million this year which represents $17.3 million annualized. That brings the total to more than $100 million annually to support the Province's Poverty Reduction Strategy. These are significant dollars and they will allow for many initiatives to be expanded on. It will also allow for many new initiatives to be explored as well.

In this Budget we saw $1.7 million to support initiatives related to youth at risk. We saw $605,000 for a Youth Addiction Prevention and Early Intervention Program. We saw over $400,000 to support residential and transition services for youth through a supportive board and lodgings model.

We saw over a half million dollars to expand the Community Youth Network to form additional sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a program, Mr. Speaker, that I have had an opportunity to work with. We have seen great success from Community Youth Networks in this area, and I am pleased to see that that initiative is being expanded to support other regions of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget, in terms of poverty reduction, also set aside $1 million to improve access to healthy food and community activities. We are talking about investments in Healthy Baby Clubs, in Kids Eat Smart programs and JumpStart programs right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government recognizes our role in economic development. We are also very serious and very committed to playing a very meaningful role in the social development of each and every community in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is great work being done in the Department of Justice and there are numerous announcements that directly affect people in the communities that I represent. I was very pleased to see $1.6 million dedicated to strengthening the RNC and the RMCP.

Mr. Speaker, several years ago, before this government took office in 2003, it was no secret that the RNC was not well resourced and was not well supported. It was lacking in equipment, the morale was low, and the RNC was struggling to deliver its basic mandate in a lot of ways, in my opinion, as someone who worked with them on a community level. We have seen a real change over the last four and a half years, and this Budget once again builds on this government's commitment and vision to improving policing throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We see a great recruitment and training partnership with Memorial University. We see an investment in new equipment and new technology. Morale within the force, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, is at an all time high. Other specific issues in this region are being addressed in this Budget. There is a new cyber crime investigator going to be put in place. The drug trade unit, the unit that explores drug enforcement, will double as a result of this Budget. These are just a couple of examples of the investments made in terms of Justice in this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. There is lots of money in this Budget for public sector wage increases. There are many great initiatives for seniors, increased investments in health care, not only in terms of infrastructure but also in terms of personnel, and there are some particular initiatives that relate directly to the recruitment and retention of nurses which I am particularly pleased to see as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a member of this government and a member of this House for such a historic Budget, and I look forward to seeing many of those new initiatives implemented over the course of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to participate in what I believe is a historic Budget Debate for this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few words to add to the Budget debate today.

A few days ago, I had an opportunity to speak for an hour on the Budget and to talk about where the revenues are generated in the Province and how they are being spent, in terms of where the money comes from, not just where the money goes.

I know that some members at that time took some offence to me calling the Budget a banker's budget, but I certainly stand by those comments, and they are certainly very relevant, but today I want to talk about one of the expenditures that is in this Budget and that is the expenditure that is being provided for the Cameron inquiry. That is the inquiry that is ongoing in this Province, a judicial inquiry into the ER-PR testing of many patients in Newfoundland and Labrador, and how there has been some faulty testing that had occurred, how information was communicated within the health corporation, how information was communicated within government and held within government, in some departments, for up to two years, from 2005 onward, and the accountability for that information and how it is portrayed to the public.

I want to talk about that expenditure today, Mr. Speaker, because this is one of the largest health disasters that we have seen in Newfoundland and Labrador history. It has contributed to the deaths of a number of women in this Province and there are still many others, men and women, who are fighting cancer today because of wrong diagnoses or wrong treatments that they may have been prescribed at that time.

It is no small issue and it is no small matter. It is every bit as equivalent to other major inquiries that we have had in this Province, whether it be the one into Mount Cashel or the one into the Ocean Ranger disaster, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, no one in this Province should make light of what is happening within that inquiry, or of the time or the expenditure that is required in order for it to be done appropriately.

I want to talk about that today, and I talk about that simply because there has been application made to the government by Justice Margaret Cameron, who is the appointed Chief Justice for this inquiry, appointed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador through the Premier, and this individual, Mr. Speaker, has requested that there be an extension of time given for her to finish her work as part of this public inquiry, and that also she be given additional funds to be able to carry out and fulfill the terms of reference and the mandate that she has been given.

Now, those issues have become the centre of discussion and controversy in this Province, accusations being made by the Attorney General, of all people. The one individual in this House of Assembly and the one individual in this Province who is expected to be non-biased in upholding justice in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is the one person that is out there today questioning this.

Now, there is something wrong with that. There is something wrong with that, when the Attorney General is the person speaking out and lashing out and questioning what is happening within the judicial process within this Province.

Mr. Speaker, his referenced comments have been in relation to the amounts of money being requested, in relation to the amount of time that witnesses are taking to give testimony. Well, Mr. Speaker, witnesses are invited there for one purpose only, and that is to provide information to the inquiry and to the counsel that is there, so that they may take that information and analyze it to form into recommendations at the end of the day.

Anyone who has witnessed and watched this inquiry, it is not like a running flow of information that is coming from witnesses. We have seen occasions where there had to be probing and questioning in order to get the details that they need to be able to make a decision.

So, why would one want to stifle that process? Why would one want to limit the amount of time that a witness would need to take to give testimony or to be questioned? Why would one want to limit the number of questions, or those counsel that would be entitled to ask questions? Because that is exactly what is happening in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, let's back up a little bit. We know that there was a request made from Justice Cameron for an extension and additional resources. We also know that on Thursday, on that same day, there was a meeting that occurred between the pathologists, the oncologists, the Medical Association, the Minister of Health, and the Premier, in the Province. We also know that meeting was based around: discussions around pay and salary benefits for pathologists in the Province; the shortage that we are incurring right now; the workload that they are about to take on; what will have to happen to tests that have to be sent out of the Province; what kind of delays will this cause for patients who need to know what their prescribed treatments should be in the event of having gone through cancer.

Mr. Speaker, this was what the meeting was about and it took three weeks of probing in this House of Assembly, probing the Minister of Health, probing the Premier, to get them to realize and look at this issue seriously enough that they would actually take the time to sit down with these people, listen to what they have to say, and act on their behalf.

On Thursday night we finally got to that stage, and that happened, but something else happened, Mr. Speaker. Something else happened. The Premier came out of the meeting with the pathologists and the oncologists and he was on fire, Mr. Speaker. He was on fire. Something was scorching the Premier at that time. He ran before the cameras, and the first thing he did was question the integrity of the Cameron inquiry. In front of the media, in the middle of the scrum, scorching, Mr. Speaker, for some reason, he questioned the full integrity of the individuals and the process regarding the Cameron inquiry in this Province – the very inquiry that he himself set up, the very Justice that he appointed.

In this House we asked to have input into the terms of reference and we were shut down. We were told by the government: No way, you will not have any input into the terms of reference. We are the government; we are going to do this. It is going to be done our way.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they did it their way and now the Premier has a problem with his way, because nobody is falling in line. The soldiers are not marching to the drum, Mr. Speaker. The problem here is that all the soldiers are not marching to the drum. He cannot line them up like he can his caucus and his Cabinet. He cannot have them all play to the one beat and, because of that, Mr. Speaker, he is scorching, so he goes out and he questions the Cameron inquiry and the integrity of the people who are there. He calls it a witch hunt. A witch hunt, Mr. Speaker, is the phrase that he uses. He talks about it being a prosecution, not an inquiry. This is the kind of inflammatory language that the Premier used to be able to describe a process that is ongoing in this Province to get to the bottom of some very serious, serious issues.

Mr. Speaker, people were offended by his comments, and he knew they were offended by his comments, so what happened? The next day, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, runs to the Open Line shows - in fact, he didn't run, Mr. Speaker. He told us today he was sitting in his car, on the way to his district, and he pulled over or something to make a phone call. He went to the public airwaves, to the Open Line shows, in what was supposed to be in defence of the hole that the Premier had just dug himself into; but, as opposed to digging him out, Mr. Speaker, he made the hole bigger. The Minister of Justice actually made the hole bigger, calling into question not only the integrity of the Commission and the Commissioner, but then calling into question the amounts of money being spent, the amount of time it was taking, the amount of time that witnesses had to spend on the stand. This is the Attorney General for the Province, the highest officer in the justice system within our Parliament, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court, but within our Parliament, the Attorney General, who is now out questioning on an Open Line show in his car on the side of the road, so fuming mad by this time with the host of the Open Line show that he does not bail the Premier out of the mess he is in or come to his defence, but, in fact, he makes the hole bigger in my opinion. This is the classic activity that we have seen play out over two days. For some reason the government was getting scorched here and this was what we seen happening, as opposed to them keeping their nose out of this and letting the people who are involved do their work.

Let's see what happened on Monday morning, Mr. Speaker. It gets a whole lot better come Monday morning. All Mother's Day they must have been scrambling up in the Department of Justice. They must have been scrambling in the Department of Justice to try and find a clause somewhere in these rules and procedures that would outline the Commission and how the Commission was to be run, to try and bail the Premier out of the hole he just made for himself in calling into question the integrity of this inquiry. I figure they must have had every lawyer in the Department of Justice on overtime on the weekend going through this document to try and find something that they could use to bail themselves out.

Well, let me tell you what they found. They found something called section 29. This is what they were intending to use, section 29, which says that you can adduce evidence from a witness. It says some other things here. Adducing evidence, maybe I will give you a definition of it now in a little while, if I have enough time, then the hon. members will know exactly to what I refer.

Mr. Speaker, this is what they decided they would use. They sent a lawyer from the Department of Justice, a lady by the name of Jackie Brazil. Now, Jackie Brazil is an employee in the Department of Justice, answers to the Minister of Justice in the government that is preceded over by the Premier of the Province. Jackie Brazil shows up. She has now been selected, single-handedly, to go down to the Cameron inquiry first thing Monday morning and state that we do not want to have Bern Coffey asking any more questions at this inquiry. He cannot do any cross-examination. That is what Jackie Brazil was told to do, but guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? She showed up. No written agreement, nothing in her hand, not even a hat in her hand, I say, she had nothing. She showed up in front of this inquiry and the first question that Justice Cameron asked her was: Who sent you? She was stumped. She was stumped, Mr. Speaker.

The legal counsel in the Department of Justice who was told by her master to go to the inquiry and shut this down, and we are going to appeal, and we are not happy with the process. She was told to go down, go before the microphone and do this. The first question that Chief Justice asked her was: Who sent you? Mr. Speaker, she relented. She did not want to tell who her master was and what he had asked her to do. She relented. She tried her best to jump around the question, to dance through the hoops, but at the end of the day, before the day was over, we knew who sent Jackie Brazil to the Cameron inquiry. We knew who sent Jackie Brazil down to say Bern Coffey should not be cross-examining witnesses at this inquiry. It was the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General for the Province and the Premier for the Province, because by now the two of them were in the same hole. They had it big enough now that the two of them could fit into it and they needed to find a way to crawl their way out of it. They needed to find a way that could be justified, one which would seem to be somewhat legitimate and not just be seen as a Premier's short fuse and a minister coming to his defence, blowing off in the public airways, undermining a political process in this Province. That is what happened here, Mr. Speaker. That is why Jackie Brazil, I am sure, would not say who sent her. In fact, she was questioned time and time again by Justice Cameron but she was not going to disclose who, under which she had taken her instruction, and who had sent her here to do this.

Mr. Speaker, we found out before the day was over. We found out. In questioning in the House of Assembly that afternoon, this is what we were told. We were told that they were trying to ask Justice Cameron to look at section 29 of the Rules of Procedure and Practice that would govern the Commission of Inquiry into the ER-PR testing. That was the purpose. This was the section under which it was questionable as to whether Mr. Coffey would have the right, as legal counsel to the Commission, to cross-examine witnesses that were testifying at this particular hearing.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is open to interpretation. If you want to look at section 18 in this agreement, it will tell you: If counsel is granted the right to do so, examination shall be confined to the normal rules governing the examination of one's own witness. Counsel for a party may apply to the Commissioner to lead a particular witness' evidence in chief.

Now, you can determine whether this is interpreted to mean that with the consent of Justice Cameron, Mr. Coffey would have the ability to cross-examine and question whomever he may. Look at section 16 in this, one of the sections that I think the Premier and the Minister of Justice forgot to look at when they reviewed the document. Section 16 says this, "Subject to the Public Inquires Act, 2006…" - which is an act within this House of Assembly by the way. Any member can pull it out and read it, as I did. It is easy to get. It says, "…the conduct of and the procedure to be followed on the Inquiry are under the control and discretion of the Commissioner."

That tells me everything I need to know. That tells me under section 16 that the Commissioner has the discretion within this inquiry to set the conduct of and the procedure to be followed. That would, in essence, mean entitling Mr. Coffey to cross-examine any witnesses that he may feel to do so.

We will wait to see if the scrambling of the government minister and the Premier will be able to deliver the result that they want at the end of the day. We will await the decision of the Chief Justice and we will see what the decision will be. I can guarantee you that this was only an issue because of the scorching, burning desire that the Premier had when he rushed to the microphones on Thursday night.

Let's get back to those comments. Where did those comments come from? It was our understanding from the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association that it was not their position that the Cameron inquiry should be shut down. We spoke to a number of pathologists and doctors who sat in that meeting that night and they told us it was not their desire to see the Cameron Commission shut down or to undermine the integrity of it. Sure, many of them have said to us time and time again, they have said to me directly, this is a painful process. This is going to be difficult for professionals who work in this field in our Province but we also know it is necessary. We also know that it needs to be done. I do not think these people are making those statements light heartedly, Mr. Speaker, I think they are making them weighing out all the consequences and knowing at the end of the day the only way that you are going to get real results and recommendations in restoring the integrity of our system is by having a process that is open and transparent, something government over here would not know anything about as we have established many times, openness and transparency, but that is what these people are asking for.

All of the sudden the Premier rushes out of the meeting and says, that this is as result of comments that are being made by pathologists and oncologists in this Province, that this is what they see, that they think it is a witch hunt, they think it is going to crumble the health care system in this Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was not the indication that we got whatsoever. In fact, we have talked to the head of pathology - we heard Dan Fontaine, Dr. Fontaine, when he tabled his resignation over at the lab when he said that his decision was not based on anything that was happening in or around the Cameron Inquiry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Premier's defence for his comments was very much unfounded. Then today we had Dr. Tumilty who was the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association in the paper, Mr. Speaker, saying that at no time during the last week's meeting between doctors and the government did the Cameron Inquiry come up. We also know that the Premier did not like the doctor's comments very well and went after him today demanding a letter of apology saying that it did come up, that there was some discussion in the meeting. Every time, Mr. Speaker, there is a person in this Province who speaks out against this Premier, do not tow the line, do not clap their feet and fall in line like soldiers on guard, Mr. Speaker, this Premier is out there looking to disparage their characters, looking out there to undermine their professional abilities, just like he has done with Dr. Tumilty today. It is absolutely disgusting, Mr. Speaker! It is disgusting!

We saw it last week with John Abbott, we saw it with Justice Cameron, we have seen it with legal counsel like Bernard Coffey and Sandra Chaytor, we are seeing it today with the President of the Medical Association and the list goes on and on and on. I bet you before midnight tonight he will be out there taking a swipe at Justice John Gomery who did the Gomery Inquiry, who was on the radio this morning saying that the Premier was out of line and that he was inappropriately making comments in the middle of this Inquiry. I bet you, before the clock strikes midnight tonight, the Premier will be looking for a way to cut the legs out from under Gomery as well, Mr. Speaker. Because: how dare you question me? How dare you take an opinion different from me? If you do, I will stop at nothing, I will stop at nothing to disparage your reputation, to ruin your professional credibility. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this government, they always have to be right and no one else is entitled to have an opinion different from what they have.

Well this is one issue where there are a lot of opinions, Mr. Speaker, because there are a lot of people impacted. For the life of me, I cannot understand, and may never understand in my lifetime, why a Premier who wanted to be sincere and was portrayed to be sincere in launching a public inquiry into the largest health disaster in our history in this Province, would now go out and tear it to pieces like he has, undermine it in the way that he has and attack every individual involved in it. Even those who are not involved but have opinions that support this Commission, he has attacked them and attacked them on a very personal level; kike today, Mr. Speaker, out demanding letters of apologies from physicians in this Province. How dare they have the opportunity to speak out on an issue, Mr. Speaker! It is absolutely ludicrous, ludicrous in leadership, like you have never seen before, Mr. Speaker.

This is what has been happening. Mr. Speaker, through all of that process we still do not know if this government is prepared to grant the extension for this public Inquiry to continue or not, which is a very important question to be answered. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had calls today at my office from victims who are impacted by this. Do you know what one lady said to me today? She said, of everything that we have been through, now we have got to go through the stress of wondering if this Inquiry will be finished or whether it will not.

Now isn't that something, that these people out there today who are victims, who thought that they were being looked at as part of a process that would be independent, that would be thorough, that would provide valid recommendations, and hopefully be able to settle or recommend a settlement of issues of liability, and today they do not know if there will be resources provided for that process to continue as it has been. That is a very fair question.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question again today in the House of Assembly, and do you know what the Premier said today in answer to my question? In fact, it was the last question I asked today. I asked him if he was prepared to stand in the House today and grant the extension for the inquiry and to provide the additional resources. Do you know what his response to me was? We have asked Justice Cameron to do a breakdown of the expenses and to give us the amount of money in expenditure that she will require. We have asked her to give us the timeframe on calling the other eighty witnesses and how long that will take. We also want to know if the process is going to be followed, and if the process is going to be followed then, Mr. Speaker, we will look at granting the resources and the time.

Well, whose process is the Premier referring to? Is it the process that he wants to have followed, because he doesn't want cross examinations and too many questions? Maybe he is protecting himself before he becomes a witness on the stand himself. Maybe that is the idea here. Or is it the process that we have seen established, established in the pages that outline the rules and process of procedures, the eleven pages that have documented how this Inquiry would take place from start to finish? That is a very important question that we need to get an answer to, Mr. Speaker. So far we have not had that particular answer.

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate, the turn of circumstances that this has taken. It is really unfortunate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed at the time I listened to the Cabinet ministers, former Cabinet ministers and the current minister, testifying at this Inquiry, and realizing that one did not have disclosure because no one asked him a question. Then we had another minister who was not being informed and nobody told him what was going on. Then we had the current minister, Mr. Speaker, who forgot to read his briefing notes. I was somewhat disappointed at that stage, that you could have three Cabinet ministers who demonstrated such levels of incompetency in dealing with this file within the department, that they were on the witness stand unable to provide clarity and conciseness around this issue.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when you get witnesses who get on the stand and they start providing information and government doesn't like that information, what have they done? They have gone out publicly and taken these people on, basically saying: you should not have said this on the witness stand.

When people are called as witnesses to testify in a judicial inquiry, and my learned colleagues in this House can correct me if I am wrong, don't you have to take an oath? Don't you take an oath that the information that you will provide is to the best of your ability?

Well, when a witness is asked what their opinions are, and what the answers are to certain questions, and they provide it, I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that they are doing it under oath and that they are providing to the best of their ability the information as they know it and as they see it. So, what is the purpose of the Premier of the Province going out and criticizing the witnesses' testimony?

That is what we saw with John Abbott last week, a former Deputy Minister of Health who has had a long distinguished career as a public servant in Newfoundland and Labrador, worked in numerous government departments over the years, his last posting being under the government opposite in the Department of Health and Community Services, an individual who in essence was fired because of the way things were handled with regard to the ER-PR testing, and removed from the Department of Health by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, when he gave testimony under oath he was asked his opinion; he was asked direct questions in which he gave direct answers. Mr. Speaker, who am I or anyone else to go out and say that he should not have said that? Well, that is what the Premier of this Province did. He went out and claimed that a witness on the stand should not have said or revealed certain information. The information that he talked about was that government used the Open Line shows to establish the policies within government and to direct policies of government around certain issues.

Now you can take that for what you want, but those were the comments that were made. The Premier took great exception to that, but we already know that there are many people who are given notes by the government to deliver key messages on Open Line shows. We hear the regular callers to Open Line, Mr. Speaker, who always get notes from government, or get calls from members, or provided information verbally or written, key messages of government, before they call into the Open Line shows. That is no big, massive secret. I think everybody knows that.

Of course, the people who are receiving it and doing it, they know it better than anyone.

The fact that the former deputy minister goes out and says that government tries to influence the direction, key messages of government, on Open Line shows, is that really an incorrect statement, I wonder? It is one that has certainly gotten the Premier scorching and got him upset, but I wonder how close it is to the truth.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is the case here and the case where witnesses – not only is the Minister of Justice complaining about how long it takes for them to give their testimony, or how long it takes for them to be questioned, but now we have the Premier out, not happy with the kind of answers that they are giving. Well, in all due respect, the answers they give, I understand, are under oath, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, we can only assume and accept that they are giving them to the best of their ability.

That was the other issue that occurred in the Province around the Cameron inquiry in the last few days. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier and I will say it again, I have no idea, no idea whatsoever, and I bet there are a lot of other people out there in the public today who are trying to put their heads around the fact that government, who established this inquiry – they did it with some reluctance, I might say. We had to prod at them a bit in the House of Assembly, raise the issue in the public, in order for it to become a public issue, but after that they did agree to do the inquiry. Mr. Speaker, they were the ones who set the terms of reference for the inquiry. We asked to have input into the terms of reference and we were told: Absolutely not, we are going to do this and we will set the terms of reference.

So, they did that. They appointed Justice Margaret Cameron to oversee this inquiry, and they did so for a very good reason - a very credible, very reputable, very established woman in her profession, Mr. Speaker, who has a tremendous and impeccable reputation for fairness, and therefore was a very appropriate person to be appointed to do this.

Mr. Speaker, now, all of a sudden - they have had full control over this, but as soon as it started to lose control, as soon as the questioning and the answers got outside of where government would have liked them to be, all of a sudden they wanted to rein everybody in. They wanted to rein in the people at the Cameron Commission, just like they rein in the Cabinet and the caucus, Mr. Speaker. Everybody clap your feet and stand in line, march to the drum; that is the way it is, Mr. Speaker.

Now you are dealing with a very different issue, a very different issue now, Mr. Speaker, and they do not have that kind of control; but, Mr. Speaker, having said that, even without that kind of control, why would they want to go out and undermine their own process - the process that they put in place to service the victims, the patients, the medical community, and to restore the integrity of health care in this Province? They had full control right from the beginning. Everything was done by their rules and their guidelines. Why would they now call all of that into question?

That is a very important question that deserves to be answered, Mr. Speaker, and one we have not gotten an answer to. I have never seen such inflammatory language used by a Premier of the Province in my life, in describing a process that is so vital and so important to the public in this Province, as I have with this Premier on this issue.

Even Justice Gomery, this morning, alluded to the fact - and Justice Gomery, Mr. Speaker, has a reputation right now of probably being one of the highest profiled judiciaries to preside over an inquiry in this country. The Gomery inquiry dominated the news media right across this country for many months, Mr. Speaker. There was gruelling testimony by witnesses and, I say to the Minister of Justice, there were witnesses who took the stand for up to five days, who were cross-examined.

Even people nationally are watching what this Premier is saying and they are absolutely floored that he could undermine the integrity of a process that he himself so intimately established and set up. It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, and to what ends does it serve? To what ends does it serve? At the end of the day, if the Premier is to get his way here, to what ends will that serve?

It will serve to shut down the questions of cross-examination at the inquiry. It will serve to shorten the testimony of witnesses. It will serve to shorten the time frame that will be taken, and that is the only thing that it will do. It will not contribute to anything in terms of recommendations, in terms of direction, in terms of preserving the integrity of our system. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it has founded itself with no place in this inquiry but rather another occasion where this government has dug a hole for themselves and will disparage the reputations of any number of people in order to crawl their way out of this hole and to be able to look plausible again in the eyes of the public. It is all about politics for that Premier and that minister right now, and it is so evident every time they speak. Every time they speak it is the glaring epiphany of what they stand for - absolutely no doubt in my mind.


Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the health care system because that is the other defence that the Premier has been using ever since he dug this hole for himself on the inquiry. Well, the truth and the reality is that any given day in this Province our health care system is threatened by massive, critical issues. It is not just the public inquiry, but everyday in this House in the last two months I have raised issues around the health care system, everyday issues around the shortages of beds in ICU, surgeries that have been cancelled for up to eight times over a five-week period, cases where patients have been sleeping in the corridors of the emergency rooms because there are no beds in the health care facility to put them in. Stories of shortages of up to 440 nurses at any given time in our health care system, occasions where there is no vacation pay, cases where pathologists are retiring their jobs because they are overworked, cases where physicians are resigning their positions and moving to Western Canada, situations in this Province where there are no doctors of internal medicine. Every single day we have raised these issues in the House of Assembly. So do not tell me about the Cameron inquiry and we have to shut it all down because it could interfere with being able to restore and rebuild the health care system. Well, everyday in this Province there is an issue that threatens the critical nature of a fragile system that services half a million people in this Province, every single day. So that provides no excuse and holds no water with me.

The purpose of this inquiry is not to further dismantle a fragile complicated and critical system of health care that currently exists today. The purpose is to restore confidence in a system, to improve a system, to improve laboratories in this Province so that they are the first-class laboratories in this country, so that they have top of the line professional people that are able to do the work and provide the services. The purpose of this inquiry is to say to those 500,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador that we have restored a system of accountability in this health care system, accountability that starts not just at the bottom and stays there but also works its way to the top; a system of accountability where ministers never again will be able to have information affecting the critical lives and medical conditions of patients in their possession for up to two years before it is disclosed to the public.

That is the kind of levels of accountability that this inquiry will hopefully provide for at the end of the day. It will provide for protocols and procedures to be followed within our health care system to ensure that not only are you getting the best service at the front lines from qualified, professional individuals like nurses, like doctors, like pathologists, like oncologists, like surgeons. It is not only to ensure that you are getting that best possible service, but it is also to ensure that the data collection, the record keeping, the systematic procedures that must occur within our health care system, are improved as well. So that whether it is five years or ten years or fifteen years down the road, I will walk into a hospital in this Province and I will know, Mr. Speaker, that my service does not stop with the frontline person or stop with the operating table, but rather it will be recorded, it will be analyzed, it will be diagnosed and it will be treated, and it will be documented. That is the key element of what we are dealing with here.

This is not about the Premier and the government, but yet they have made it about them. They have weighed into this inquiry in ways that have been unheard of in our history, in ways that have been unprecedented in public inquiries. It was not necessary and nor should they continue to intervene in that way. That was the reason I asked today, for the sole purpose of restoring our health care system and ensuring that the Cameron inquiry proceeds effectively and independently, was the reason I asked the Premier today to withdraw the application that they were to tender yesterday to the inquiry to stop the cross-examination of witnesses. Withdraw the application. Walk away, pull back, and stay out of it. There is no place for government to weigh into this. You did your part. You did your part when you launched the inquiry but now you are going beyond a position where you should be. When you start questioning the integrity of this Inquiry, you call into question a lot of professional people in this Province who are out there working hard to try to get to the bottom of something to improve it for the people of this Province at the end of the day. If you were to follow with your original agenda, maybe, Mr. Speaker, we would see a lot more service done, less delays, and we would probably see results a lot sooner. But because of the continuous interference, everything from things like court challenges by Eastern Health to the lack of government information coming forward, we have seen delay after delay after delay.

Mr. Speaker, knowing that today we are to have a ceremonial visit and occasion in the House of Assembly, I have been asked to adjourn debate on the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh! I have been asked to conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker. I have to get the right terminology, because if I were to adjourn my debate, Mr. Speaker, I would get to speak for another seventeen minutes come tomorrow, but if I conclude my comments then, of course, I am giving up my time. I have certainly agreed with the Government House Leader that I would do that, and I certainly will, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, that will conclude my comments on the budget.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Any other speakers to the budgetary motion?

Is the House ready for the question?

The question is, That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before moving on to some other business that we have agreed to do at about this time, I want to remind members that after the House rises for the day, the following committees will meet this evening: the Social Services Committee will meet here in the House to consider the Estimates of the Human Resources, Labour & Employment Department, as well as the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Resource Committee will meet over in the Executive Dining Room in the West Block to consider the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources; tomorrow afternoon, the Social Services Committee will meet after the House rises to consider the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services; and as well the Government Services Committee will meet to consider the Estimates of the Department of Government Services after the House rises tomorrow evening.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

I remind hon. members and for those people who are listening by broadcast, while the regular proceedings have ended for the day, members will return and witness an official unveiling of the portrait of former Speaker, Mr. Harvey Hodder, in about ten minutes time.

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m., tomorrow, being Wednesday.

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