March 23, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV

No. 6

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome to the visitor's gallery five Level

II and Level III students from Basque Memorial School in the picturesque and

beautiful community of Red Bay, Labrador. They are accompanied by their teacher,

Thattan Higgins and by recently retired school Principal, Mr. Tom Mahoney. Of

course, these students are from the wonderful District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair. Welcome to the people's House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: We have members' statements today from the following

members: from the District of Exploits; from the hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista North; from the hon. Member for the District of Grand

Falls- Buchans; and from the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

We will go to the hon. Member for the District of Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery of three young people from

the Town of Bishop's Falls in the District of Exploits. Mr. Speaker, Kevin

Reid, Casey Murphy and Keith Budgell, all were recently acknowledged for their

acts of tremendous courage and bravery.

Mr. Kevin Reid received the Medal of Bravery from Governor General, Adrienne

Clarkson at Rideau Hall on February 7. The award was given for Mr. Reid's

efforts to save a drowning friend at Cornfield Lake near Grand Falls-Windsor in

2003. Miss Casey Murphy and Mr. Keith Budgell also received commendations for

bravery for their actions during the same tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, this Medal for Bravery was established in 1972 as part of the

Canadian Honour System. The Medal is awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous

circumstances. All three young people were nominated for these awards by the

Town Council of Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me today in

recognizing the bravery of these three outstanding young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the exceptional efforts of two individuals from

the District of Bonavista North who have made tremendous contributions to the

preservation of our culture and history. Ruby and Heath Ellis are the

proprietors of the Winsor House Heritage Inn, located in the historic community

of Wesleyville. The couple has recently received the 2005 Orchid Award,

presented by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, for their achievements

associated with the restoration of their historic property.

These Orchid Award recipients have demonstrated the importance of esthetics

by highlighting the areas natural and cultural surroundings. In 2004, the couple

received the prestigious Southcott Award, presented by the Newfoundland Historic

Trust. These awards are clear indications of the level of excellence that has

already been achieved as a result of their hard work and dedication.

In 1905, Captain William Winsor, one of Newfoundland's most prominent

sealing captains hired Master Shipbuilder Arthur Gillingham to construct this

home in Wesleyville. Once completed, the house rivaled the very finest merchant

homes in St. John's. Through the years the Winsor house served as an important

landmark for mariners approaching Wesleyville.

As years went on, struggles in the fishery were reflected in this once great

building and it eventually fell into a state of disrepair, becoming merely a

shadow of its former self. Ruby and Heath Ellis realized that we were at risk of

losing this important part of our heritage, and decided to purchase the

building. Through their tireless efforts, the Windsor Home has been restored to

its former Victorian grandeur and, in the process, Ruby and Heath have created

one of the Island's finest bed and breakfast establishments. Individuals such

as Ruby and Heath play a vital role in preserving our heritage and advancing the

tourism potential of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Once again, I congratulate them on their accomplishments and thank them for

their dedication to the preservation of our culture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Grand

Falls-Windsor Sparkling Blades Figure Skating Club, synchronized skaters who

captured the gold medal in the pre-novice category at the Skate Newfoundland and

Labrador Festival of Synchronized Skating which was held at the Glacier in Mount

Pearl on January 28 to January 29, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing when you consider that at last year's

competition this team that had never performed synchronized skating before were

presented a bronze medal for their performance. In the year since then, they

have excelled to the top of their class with this year's gold medal win. This

significant achievement speaks highly of the hard work and dedication by the

team who, under the direction of coach Carol Foote, have no doubt spent many

hours practicing and perfecting their act in order to perform at this level.

They have all demonstrated the skills and qualities that will guarantee them a

bright future in synchronized figure skating.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of this hon. House to join with me in

congratulating the Sparkling Blades Figure Skating Club synchronized skating

team and wish them all the greatest success in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to honour the Town of Bay Roberts, who is the winner of the

2004-2005 edition of Winter Lights Celebration, a national competition, in the

population category of from 5,000 to 10,000. The community was recognized for

the illumination parade which took place during their festival of lights with

over 2,000 people in attendance.

The town and the special events committee did an outstanding job promoting

their community to its citizens and to the adjacent towns. The judges who

assessed Bay Roberts were astounded with the town's involvement at all levels

within the community. During December, the judges assessed the communities

competing on their decorations, visual presentation and lighting displays, along

with the festive and wintertime activities engaged by each community. Such great

pride, along with a feeling of community accomplishments, was pleasantly

observed. I am proud to mention that the whole community excelled in all

criteria, including the festival celebration, winter pleasures, and visual

presentation.

I would also like to mention that, even though it is not in my district, Cow

Head also won the same award for the population up to 1,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members to join with me in

congratulating the Town of Bay Roberts and all those who volunteered their time

in promoting their community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: I rise today to acknowledge the Province's Youth Advisory

Committee and congratulate them on the completion of their annual report,

"Right Here Right Now". The Premier and I had a very informative

meeting yesterday with several committee members as they walked us through some

of the key aspects of the report.

Mr. Speaker, the Youth Advisory Committee was established to give youth a

direct voice to government. Since its inception in 2001, this committee has

provided government with valuable feedback and advice on how programs and

policies can best meet the needs of the young people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I would like to commend all members of the committee for their ongoing

insight, expertise and sense of community responsibility.

As outlined in their annual report, this has been another busy and exciting

year for the committee. They held regional meetings in Gander, St. John's and

Gros Morne, and visited with local groups across the Province to discuss topics

of mutual interest.

Mr. Speaker, the Youth Advisory Committee's Annual Report includes a number

of recommendations in program and policy development. These recommendations

include such areas as alternate education, supportive services, healthy

lifestyles, youth employment and affordable post-secondary education.

I would like to thank the committee for their recommendations. My department

and my colleagues in government are currently reviewing these in an effort to

ensure our policies and programs meet the needs of our young population.

Mr. Speaker, we hold our many partnerships with community groups and

organizations in high regard. They ensure we, as a government, continue to offer

and develop programs and supports that reflect the priorities of the people we

serve. I look forward to our continued partnership with the Youth Advisory

Committee in addressing the needs, concerns and challenges of our young

population.

I invite all members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to take some time to review

the Youth Advisory Committee's Annual Report. It provides an opportunity to

learn first-hand the priorities of our young population. However, most of all,

it is a great example of a productive and valuable collaboration between

government and our youth.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement and to

say that we, on this side of the hon. House, also want to congratulate the Youth

Advisory Committee on the completion of this year's annual report.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that since its inception in 2001, the former

Administration also gave their blessings to the wonderful work that this

committee has done. It is good to see that they did travel throughout the

Province and they have been very active meeting with other groups.

I look forward to reading the report, as the minister has stated, and sizing

up and paying attention to the recommendations they have put forward. I hope the

government of the day - and I am sure they will - will pay particular attention

to, when we mention here, youth employment, to make sure that out-migration,

which seems to be on the increase again, is adhered to so that those young

people, when they find the job that they are looking for, they can go to work

right here in this Province.

Once again, I want to thank the minister for a copy of the statement, and to

wish the committee every success in its future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to acknowledge the work of the Youth Advisory Committee and

congratulate them on their work in advising government on priorities for young

people in the Province. I look forward to reading the annual report, and the

recommendations.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this minister and her government will listen to

those recommendations in a better way than they did to the women's lobby and

the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, who are none too pleased

with this government's failure to recognize the role of women centres in the

Province, and the need to have the resources to carry out equality in advocacy

work in the Province. I hope that this Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women will also listen to the recommendations and follow them, and not just

leave them to one side.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that a project intended to explore the

commercial growth potential of potatoes in Labrador will take place starting

this year in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area.

Recently, the Department of Natural Resources carried out a selection process

to identify a qualified producer to undertake the pilot potato project following

a Call for Expressions of Interest. I am pleased to announce today that the

successful proponent is Day Break Farms of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The potato

crop will be planted in June at a research field using standard potato

production practices. Potatoes will be harvested in years two, three and four of

the project.

Mr. Speaker, this project is a prime example of how the recently implemented

Northern Agrifoods Strategy is being used to assess the growth potential of the

agricultural industry in Labrador. Funding for this initiative has been provided

through the federal-provincial Agricultural Policy Framework Agreement in the

amount of $63,000.

The potato project will help us enhance the viability of food production in

the region. At the end of this project, we hope we will have made progress in

determining the best techniques and practices required to produce commercial

yields of quality potatoes in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, both for local

consumption and export. By conducting a research and development project into

the potential of establishing quality potato crops in Labrador, this government

is demonstrating its commitment to enhance the agrifoods industry and its

economic benefits, not only in the Province but particularly throughout

Labrador. We have also moved forward to make available suitable land for

agricultural development, and we have provided funding, outside the APF, for the

necessary equipment required to develop the unique agricultural land base in

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives of the Northern Agrifoods Development

Strategy is to set out some long-term strategic actions to advance the

agriculture and agrifoods industry in Labrador. In considering the unique needs

of Labrador, the unique soils in Labrador, we have developed within the

Agricultural Policy Framework Agreement an initiative entitled the Northern

Agrifoods Initiative. Approximately $1.5 million, at a minimum, Mr. Speaker, has

been set aside to encourage and support the implementation of the strategy and

to encourage the development, diversification and commercialization of the

northern agrifoods industry. There is much flexibility in this initiative to

address the unique agricultural development needs within Labrador.

This funding will be targeted to encourage growth, diversification and

commercialization of livestock, crops, fruits, native berries, human resource

development, marketing and various food initiatives. Funding will also encourage

further processing, secondary processing, and more value-added products.

I encourage the producers in Labrador to seek out opportunities for funding

through the Northern Agrifoods Initiative. I look forward to continuing to work

with the Lake Melville Agricultural Association, Mr. Speaker. Government will

continue to work with the industry in Labrador to ensure we take advantage of

the opportunities for growth in the agricultural sector.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to thank the minister for

an advance copy.

Aside from the initiative taken, I see something interesting there, a call

for expressions of interest, which I am glad the minister is responsible for,

because the last two we had, the VON and the feel-good ads, were just given on

someone's buddy. I am glad the minister was responsible and put this out

properly.

As for the program itself, I commend the minister and the government. It is a

good program, it is a great program. I think it is an initiative that will

hopefully help rural Newfoundland and Labrador, not just Labrador but the whole

of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an initiative, I say to the minister,

that is going to take two to three to four years to get the final results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: It may take awhile to get the results, but if this is the kind

of steps that we must take to try to grow rural Newfoundland and Labrador - as

we know, the out-migration is going out every year. With initiatives like this

here, if we can expand on these initiatives and expand Newfoundland and Labrador

it would help Newfoundland and Labrador, help rural Newfoundland and Labrador,

and I commend the government and the minister for taking this initiative.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I just want to

say that there are many private gardens now in Labrador that grow, very

successfully, a wide variety of vegetables. I know in my area of Labrador West

there is what we call community gardens, where many people in the community go

to a certain area and grow their own vegetables for their own use. I believe it

is possible to have a commercial operation within the Happy Valley-Goose Bay

area, and possibly other areas of Labrador as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to pay attention because I do have a

question for the minister on this statement. What I would like for the minister

to answer - I do not know if he is a bit skeptical or not, and I certainly do

not pretend to be a farmer, but the last two sentences in the second paragraph

says: "The potato crop will be planted in June at a research field..."

- I understand the word research - "... using standard potato production

practices." And, potatoes are going to be harvested in years two, three and

four.

There is probably a legitimate reason, but like I said, I am not a farmer and

I would be very interested in understanding how that would work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: May I ask leave of the House to enlighten my colleague what

farming techniques are? Do I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Government House Leader have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague and good friend

from Labrador West has admitted that he is not a farmer, and there is a very

valid reason for that. The soils in Labrador are very sandy and unique, so what

needs to happen first is what we call a green manure project where we plant and

try to put some nutrients back into the soil in year one so that in year two,

three and four we can grow those potatoes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night on an Open Line program the Premier referred to the cancer

treatment clinic in Central Newfoundland and said, and these are his words:

There was just not enough funds do it, Linda. I ask the Premier today, are there

funds actually available for this clinic or is the visit next week by the Health

Minister just another charade?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the previous government, there are no charades with this government.

When we go out, we go out to do business and accomplish business and achieve

results, like we have already proven to the rest of the Province.

With regard to the cancer clinic and available funds, it is interesting that

the former Premier of the Province, the Leader of the Opposition, is now talking

about allocations for cancer funds. The day before the Budget was delivered

there is an

article that appears in The Independent , where he is looking

for a review of the members' salaries. That was your priority a day before the

Budget and now your priority is the cancer clinic in Grand Falls. It is

interesting how you can switch around.

Now, having said that, I will deal with the question. A review of your own

salary after sixteen years, that was the issue that was of importance to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is right there. There is your face. People around

the Province recognize it from many ad campaigns.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to caution the Premier about using displays in the House. There is a

rule against using displays, and I ask him to refrain from that. I would ask him

if he will complete his answer to the question now.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: To hear, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition

was listening to me on Open Line last night, because it is a very, very

important issue. I have indicated previously that the issue of cancer is an

issue that is very dear to my heart because we lost a family member within the

last two weeks to cancer. So, it is something that I am very concerned about.

With regard to the funds that have been allocated, the minister is going out

next week to have a look at this firsthand. There is an issue here of the amount

of money that was going to be expended. There is a question here of some $4

million, and with the previous board there was an indication that there might

possibly be another $4 million. From what I can see and what I understand, there

is a need here for space facilities, there is also a need for sanitary

facilities. So, the minister is going to go out and assess the situation. He is

going to do that in conjunction with the new board, and this issue is going to

be revisited at that time. We cannot say any more. We cannot offer any more but

we are not going to just turn around and pay out large amounts of money without

having a hard look at it and having a close look at it to see if we can find

efficiencies and cost savings to deliver the right product at the end of the

day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with the rest of Question Period, I want

to remind members of both sides of the House that we try to contain our

questions and our answers within the one minute time frame. Having given members

some leeway, and I understand that the Chair will give leeway most often to the

Leader of the Opposition and to the Premier, but we should try to confine

ourselves to that general guideline.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest we would not need the minute if the Premier dealt with the issue in

a serious fashion instead of trying to play cheap politics with it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that he is so concerned about the cancer

treatment clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor - and these are his words again; this is

what he said to the media yesterday - that I have directed the Health Minister

to visit this facility to re-evaluate the priority.

I ask the Premier: Won't he acknowledge that it is true that the minister's

visit, which is going to happen next week, was first requested by the health

board over two months ago and was already confirmed by the minister's office

over three weeks ago? Why is the Premier pretending this is an action that he

directed to happen yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is no pretending here, Mr. Speaker. This is - to

use the hon. Leader of the Opposition's terminology - a serious issue. It is

indeed a serious issue. The Premier, the other day in the House, said this is a

sensitive issue. It is, Mr. Speaker, indeed a sensitive issue.

Next week, I am in Central Newfoundland for two reasons. One, we have the

official opening of the new dialysis unit in Gander, which I am looking forward

to very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: On the same day, Mr. Speaker, the second, and equally

important, reason is a visit to the much-discussed clinic over the past several

days.

I am looking forward to that visit, Mr. Speaker. I am looking forward to

meeting with the new CEO. I am looking forward to meeting with our new board

representatives with a view to seeking a solution, perhaps an alternative or an

option that is very much needed, as it appears, by the residents of Central

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the Minister of Health and Community Services confirmed that

the meeting was already arranged by him, and the Premier had nothing to do with

the meetings that are going to take place next week while he is on vacation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, and again in the media outside the

House, the Premier stated that he was cleaning up the mistakes of the past, when

asked about this issue.

MR. E. BYRNE: No question about it.

MR. GRIMES: No question about it, says the Government House Leader.

I ask the Premier if he will stand in his place now and say to the people of

the Province, and to the people of Central Newfoundland in particular, that the

decision that was taken two years ago by the Liberal government to build a

cancer treatment clinic in Central Newfoundland was and is a mistake. Answer

that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would ask the people of Central Newfoundland, and I would also ask the

previous government, is why they sat on it for several years, why they did not

do anything about it, why the previous hon. gentleman, when he was Premier of

this Province, in his own area, the area where he grew up, which he knows and

loves so dearly, why didn't he do something about it back in 2000 when this

was first raised? The same with the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, why didn't

she do anything about it? Why was she so passionate yesterday? We have not

received a correspondence from the hon. member since, I think, February, 2004.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: All of a sudden the Opposition is playing politics with

cancer, and that is terrible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now the Premier has gone back to like they were when they were in opposition,

even though we were running deficits and did not have the money that they have,

$103 million surplus in this year, suggesting now we should have spent even more

money. That is what he is suggesting.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this final question, because it is getting more and

more difficult to know what to believe from this government and from this

Premier. The Premier said yesterday that he did not know the state of the cancer

clinic in Central Newfoundland or he might have done something about it in the

Budget. Check the news last night. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador saw

it.

The facts are these: The Premier has received over 100 letters and e-mails

regarding the need for the clinic, verified by the Member for Windsor-Springdale

last night in the public, and now he is trying to say he knows nothing about it.

He says he has been lobbied hard by the Member for Windsor-Springdale. Which is

it, I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker? Did he not know about it or was he lobbied

hard and just did not do anything about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been aware of the issue of the cancer clinic. It is a

matter that has been discussed at two separate Budget discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just allow me to give an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. I ask members for their

co-operation, to permit the Premier to offer the answer.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been discussed in some detail by

Cabinet during the Budget process. It has been discussed by the various boards.

It has been raised by the member, that we have the need and the concern. What I

did not know about was the five-gallon buckets, that was presented on

television.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That makes a difference! You have to have a five-gallon

bucket to get (inaudible). What is wrong with you?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It makes a huge difference, because we had a chance to

see it first-hand.

I also saw people receiving medication -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Chair does not get greater co-operation, the Chair will have to call a

recess, and when I have talked to the House Leaders then we will be able to

reconvene and continue with Question Period. We cannot have the constant

shouting across the floor. It is not serving any purpose.

I ask the Premier now if he would complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also had an opportunity first-hand to see the cramped quarters which these

people were in and, believe me, it certainly had an impact on me, there is

absolutely no doubt about it.

The other thing, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, there has been a request for

over $4 million for this particular clinic. We do have scarce funds in

government. We are trying to be fiscally prudent and not waste money, not the

extravagance that was carried on by previous governments with the Cabinet

ministers and everybody flying all over the world at considerable expense. If

they had been conservative in the money -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Premier say, all of a sudden,

that I was (inaudible) me; I am playing politics with this issue. I have to tell

the Premier that you are accusing me falsely. I pushed hard for this cancer

clinic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member if she could dispense with the

preambles and

perhaps proceed right to the question, and likewise I say the same thing to

members on the government side.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell this hon. House that I pushed

hard for that cancer clinic. The Central West Health Care came to us in 2002

with their request; it was approved and announced in 2003.

Let me tell the Premier, I have a folder here of news releases, stories in The

Advertiser . I have been on Open Line. I have been speaking in this House 111

times since last year. If I was passionate about the cancer clinic, it is

because I take it to heart. I am going to say, I am going to continue to be

passionate about that cancer clinic.

I am going to ask the Premier now, admit that you knew about the cancer

clinic and you were aware of the importance of it and you chose not to react or

do anything about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Myself, my Cabinet, my caucus members, are aware of the

very serious needs that we have around this Province, and they are numerous, and

we cannot possibly meet them all, but nobody knows better than the Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans exactly what a problem we were left with, what we had to

deal with last year. We had very, very limited financial resources last year.

This year, once again, we have a $490 million deficit. This is not something

to be laughed at or considered. So, I can only look you straight in the face and

I can only tell you time and time again that cancer is something that is very

dear to my heart personally, and to all the members on this side of the House.

If we can do something, we are going to do something.

The minister is going out next week. He is going to have a look at it

firsthand, but we cannot just write a cheque out for $4 million if that is not

the amount that is necessary. We have a new health board that is in place that

are going to have a look at this. They will be on the job, I think, next Friday.

Perhaps you should actually wait until Friday to go out and when they are

actually there, which is what he will do. He will wait until next Friday, the

minister indicates, when that new health board is there. We will have a look at

it, but we have to make sure that the numbers are accurate. We have a

responsibility to people, but at the same time we have a responsibility to those

cancer patients, and we will deliver on that responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to react to this. The Premier

really lacked credibility on this issue. He is saying that he was left with a

mess. The Finance Minister stood on his feet Monday and talked about the

improved situation in our Province financially. He has had all kinds of lobby

from everyone involved. The meeting was requested by the Central Health care

board and you are going out.

Premier, the buck stops with you. You have the power to stand in your place,

you have access to the finances to do it, they are looking for $3.2 million - in

2003 dollars, the year it was approved. Can you stand and say: Yes, we are going

to do it. That is all you need to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we work in consultation with the Minister

of Health, we work in consultation with the health authorities, we work in

consultation with the member from the area, we work in consultation with

ministers from the area. It is all about everybody discussing it and a team

approach on this side. That is the way it always has been and that is the way it

will be done.

When the proper process has been gone through and when the minister comes

back, in conjunction with the health board and they make a recommendation to us,

then we will look at it. We are giving it very serious consideration. I cannot

tell you anymore. If you want to keep asking me, I will keep telling you that we

are going out next week. As soon as that health board is in place, we will be

there on the site and we will be looking at it. You have my assurance of that. I

cannot give you much more than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, today in the House we are going to get around,

after Question Period, of voting on a bill that will allow government to put

$103 million on government buildings that the doors are not open yet, pay off a

mortgage of $117 million. Certainly, goodness, the Premier can take $3 million

out of that money and say to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor: this is a

regional issue, it is not just for Grand Falls-Windsor.

I ask the Premier today: Mr. Premier, will you show some compassion, show

some leadership? Will you stop the suffering? Will you stand in your place - you

can do it. This money that we are going to debate in a few minutes, you can do

it. It is going to be done before the end of March. It is within your grasp, all

you have to do is agree to it. Go and stand in your place, the Province will

thank you for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this government will show compassion. We

have already shown compassion. I think if you go down through the Budget and you

look at what we have done just on the health care side, nobody can speak to that

any better than the Minister of Health; $23 million that we have put into

diagnostic equipment, new MRI, new CAT scanners, new mammograms, new diagnostic

tools for cancer. We put more money into cardiac procedures. We put money in to

deal with even hospital debts so that they can restructure and deal with their

debt. From a compassionate perspective, we are doing absolutely everything we

can but it is a big Province, we have limited means. When you talk about paying

down the debt, that is the debt that your government left us with.

The projection that we had last year was that our debt this year would be

$1.1 billion. We have it down to $490 million in just fifteen months. We are

doing the best we can. We would have to work twenty-six hours a day, if there

were two extra hours in the day, to try and just clean up the problems that you

have. But, from your perspective - from a compassion perspective we are a very,

very, very compassionate government and we are trying to do (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, the last Minister of Health who would not want to write

you $150,000 cheque is back in the back benches, so I know how much consultation

you do with the department.

Mr. Speaker, the theme of this year's Throne Speech and Budget focused on

culture and the arts. The Premier announced all sorts of initiatives for art

groups all across this Province. Yet, against the advice of Labrador educators,

mayors, his own MHA, he still refuses to come up with the funds for a

performance auditorium to serve all of Labrador.

My question is for the Premier, why doesn't his arts and culture vision

include Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have shown our concern for Labrador in our Budget this past year, $56

million is going to be spent up there. We talked about it just a few weeks ago

when the full Cabinet met in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we understand the need for

the centre that the member is looking for. We have had members in the House

present petitions, and the Member for Lake Melville made the case many times

with respect to the centre that is required in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. But, Mr.

Speaker, it comes down to priorities. We know that the people in the area -

AN HON. MEMBER: Labrador is not one of the priorities!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the member on that side said Labrador is not a

priority. Let me say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that this government

has shown much more priority for Labrador than the previous Administration has

ever shown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we know the need. We know the want. We have

been there. We saw what the people want in Labrador. We have the Minister for

Labrador Affairs say that he will meet with the people there and make that a

priority for himself. He was in Ottawa just yesterday discussing this very

matter, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation was in Ottawa looking for federal money to build a provincial

auditorium in Labrador. The minister knows full well that the federal share has

been available for the past two years, Mr. Speaker. That federal program is due

to expire at the end of this month, only seven days from now. How can the

minister demand federal participation now that his government - by refusing to

come to the table - has turned down $300,000 that is already available for this

project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The minister was in Ottawa yesterday and he was meeting with various

ministers up there to try to get funding for this facility, but what we are at

here, Mr. Speaker, is looking at possible alternatives. This building will cost

$3 million to do. That was a soft figure that was thrown out to us last year and

the year before. The Province would have to come up with $2.4 million. As we now

speak, Mr. Speaker, that estimate is now up to $4.14 million. If we can come up

with funding from the feds to put more money into it, it would be easier for the

Province and it is a road that we could go down, but until the point in time

when we can reach that, that we will have to look at other alternatives. There

are no more ifs, ands or buts about it than that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay is saying

that the Premier is misleading the Labrador residents by inferring that the

Mayor selected the priority for Labrador. Government has told the people of

Labrador that they cannot have two things at a time. They have to settle for a

set of plans for a long-term care facility, but the facility - not the facility

itself. There is a commitment from Heritage Canada and the new cultural facility

was previously approved by the provincial-federal infrastructure program.

I ask the minister: Will he now not proceed with this project before the

federal infrastructure fund expires on March 31, 2005, which is seven days from

now, which was approved? This fund expires, I say to the minister; it is time to

get the project done now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I said earlier, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs is actively

pursuing this, but I want to address one concern he made and that is this: I was

at that meeting, and most of Cabinet was at that meeting, except one. The mayor

was there, and he was asked a question: Is there a priority? The mayor did say -

because I heard it myself: It is like asking me to chop off which finger.

The Premier said to him: If it boiled down to priorities, which would it be?

He said: I would have no other choice but then to pick the long-term care

facility.

He said that clearly at the meeting, Mr. Speaker, so we are following the

mayor's concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

As a result of the First Ministers' Meeting and the new Health Care Accord

last fall, the provincial government officials estimated that we would get an

additional $35 million for last year and $50 million for this year, for a total

of $85 million. This was for new priorities, reducing wait times, catastrophic

drug programs, and increased access to services.

When we look at the Budget, Mr. Speaker, we see $23 million for new

diagnostic services. We see some other monies, but nowhere near the $85 million

that came forward. Why couldn't the Premier find, in this $85 million, money

for a cancer treatment centre in Central Newfoundland, a CT scanner for the

Burin Peninsula, and a comprehensive drug plan for all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians? What happened to the rest of the $85 million? Did it go on the

deficit? Why isn't he using it for health care for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am pleased to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the base

budget in the Department of Health and Community Services has increased this

year over last year by some $119 million in one year. In one year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - representing an increase of approximately 7 per cent

from last year to this year. In fact, the total expenditure in the department

last year was $1.6 billion, almost one-half, about 48 per cent, actually, of the

provincial expenditure; this year, well in excess of $1.7 billion for the health

needs and the health interests for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows that this new money was earmarked for certain special

specific priorities, including a catastrophic drug plan for across this country.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that every province in this country, except us, has a

program that deals with drug costs outside of seniors and those on income

support? Why do we not have a comprehensive drug plan like every other province,

including P.E.I., that deals with catastrophic drug costs, that deals with

everybody and not just people who qualify for these two programs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Again, with respect to the drug plan, Mr. Speaker, we

invest in this Province a total of $114 million, an increase, I might add, of

some $7 million from last year; and indeed, with respect to the provincial drug

plan, it is important to know that this government has added some twenty-five

new drugs to the formulary this year compared to last year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - twenty-five new drugs, new medications, that are again

there to deal with the concerns and the health care needs of our fellow

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

You have time for a very brief supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that only certain

people qualify for these programs, and every other province in the country has a

copay system for everyone so they are not impoverished by the high cost of drugs

should they have a serious illness. Why don't we have one here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we respond to and identify the health care

needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the best of our ability. Again,

what is important to recognize is the increased amount that is allocated to the

provincial drug plan for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

and it is done keeping in mind two features: One, our ability to do so; and,

secondly, keeping in mind the health interests of our fellow Newfoundlanders and

Labradorian.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Budget included funding for three long-term

care facilities in the Province, facilities that are badly needed but are not

yet underway. There is another long-term care facility that is badly needed and

is already under construction in Grand Bank.

I ask the Premier: Will you keep your promise to the residents of the Burin

Peninsula who use a seventy-year-old rundown cottage hospital and, instead of

paying down $43 million on The Rooms in St. John's, provide funding to enable

the new health care facility under construction in Grand Bank to proceed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we are embarking on a very important and

exciting long-term care plan for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In fact, in

this Budget we specifically identified three communities in our Province: the

City of Corner Brook, the Town of Clarenville and the Town of Happy Valley-Goose

Bay. These three communities will see direct input of funding this particular

year so that we can move forward, beginning with these three municipalities, to

a long-term care facility regime in the entire Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I am happy for those three communities and they are badly

needed, but what about Grand Bank? Don't they fit into your long-term plan?

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how easy it is for this Premier to say one thing

and do another. He refers to anyone he says has broken a promise as

dishonorable, yet he can do the same and think it is okay. Premier, your actions

are what give politicians a bad name.

Why is it okay for you to break your promise that you made during the

election while you were in Grand Bank, to complete the health care facility?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I understand commitment, Mr. Speaker. I know what

commitment means. When I stand in an election and I run in a district, the

District of Humber West, I make a commitment to the people of Humber West, that

I will stay there and that I will represent them throughout my term of office.

You tried to abandon the people in your district when you (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. REID: What a silly man! What a silly man!

MR. GRIMES: What a fool you are!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

We have time for a brief supplementary by the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: As I said, Mr. Premier, your actions are what give politicians

a bad name. You are a prime example of why people don't like politicians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the response yesterday from the Minister of Health

and Community Services, that there won't be a CT scanner for the Burin

Peninsula has caused a lot of anger on the Burin Peninsula.

Why is it that you think the people of the Burin Peninsula don't deserve a

CT scanner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the majority, or certainly a large number,

of the residents of the Burin Peninsula have access to the Clarenville facility.

I might add, Mr. Speaker - I want to make a point because this is important.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I want to make a point, Mr. Speaker. The Clarenville

facility in this Province -

MR. GRIMES: Go to Clarenville. Go to St. John's. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have a few seconds left for, in fairness, to give to the minister to

finish his answer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Clarenville facility has one of the

best wait time records in the entire Province. In fact, most of the residents of

the Burin Peninsula who access that facility are involved only in a two week

wait period.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to all other features of health care on the Burin

Peninsula, whether it be long-term care, whether it be CAT scan, whether it be

dialysis, these decisions and reviews will be dealt with on a go-forward basis

as we have our new integrated health authorities coming into effect in a matter

of days and in conjunction with government and the people of the Burin

Peninsula, and our new health care authorities (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

During Question Period today, although it will not be shown on the public

record, there were some expressions used that were clearly unparliamentary. The

Member for Twillingate & Fogo was heard by the Speaker in referring to the

Premier to use the word lie in direct reference to the Premier. I would ask the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo if he would withdraw his unparliamentary

language?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier misled the people of the Province and if I used the word lie, I

will withdraw it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the level of intensity of debate in the

House. However, there cannot be a qualification and in offering an apology you

cannot again offend the House by saying the Premier misled the - we ask you to

withdraw your comments unequivocally.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not apologize but I will withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The second incident today involved the Leader of the

Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The second incident today involved the Leader of the Opposition, in referring

to an hon. member opposite he used the word fool. I would ask the Leader of the

Opposition if he would withdraw that comment.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order is raised by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all realize that we play by rules here in this House. You are the person,

I guess, in common language who enforces those rules. I would like to bring a

point of order to the issue of times for answering and responding to questions.

Since we started in this new session of government, last spring was the first

sitting, I think everybody has tried to adhere to the Chair's rulings in terms

of asking more questions in a timely fashion and trying to have some kind of

equality between the amount of time it takes to ask a question and the amount of

time it takes to respond. I fully realize that you cannot always do that. It is

not exact science. Sometimes the questions may be very brief and it takes a

minister some context in which to answer. I have brought this matter to the

attention of the Chair previously, that I do not think the equality is being

achieved when we have a question of ten seconds and answers of fifty-nine. We

saw it here again today. All we ask is that, number one, if the rules of the

House are going to be enforced, the rules should be enforced fairly for both

sides.

When we see things of this person did this and this person did that, lots of

temperatures have run in here in the course of the Question Periods in the last

few weeks. I would suggest, if the Chair is going to be picking out: I heard

this and I heard that, there are a lot of things, I would suggest, from all of

us, that depending on who you turn your ears to on any given day, we may or may

not be all chastised by the Chair. I am just suggesting that the issue of

fairness has been raised by this caucus over here. We saw it again here today,

in terms of the amount of time being permitted to respond to the questions.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

To the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader, I can only say

this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask members opposite - I sat down and

listened in silence to my colleague who has raised a point of order. From time

to time, depending on the issues in this House, points of order are raised to

clarify certain situations. I appreciate the point of view and the role that he

has to play, and I listened to him because I wanted to make sure that my

response was adequate and to the point that he has raised. I am not going to be

able to do that if members opposite are going to continue to interrupt. I just

ask for a few moments to be able to respond to your own House Leader's point,

please.

To the point of order raised in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, the rules are

fairly clear. I understand that. There is latitude the Speaker must, I guess,

apply with respect to points of order or with respect to issues that are

contentious, that are more hotly debated. Questions are normally supposed to be

- the first question, a short

preamble; supplementaries to the point. Ministers

and members opposite on the government side who answer on behalf of the

government, according to the rules of our House and standard parliamentary

tradition which has evolved over the years, the response is supposed to be the

point. There are times that latitude is provided because of the nature of the

issue.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to you is this: On that point that the Opposition

House Leader has raised, we respect the guidance of the Chair on that matter.

That may evolve or change from time to time, depending on the issue, but I am

certainly not going to challenge the Chair's point of view.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, an important point that the member raised, and I think

he asked a question about the Chair himself - being you at the moment - with

respect to comments that are made. There is an obligation on the Speaker of the

House that if he hears unparliamentary language, no matter where it may be, on

either side of the House, that if the Chair hears that, he must respond to it.

It does not need a prompting by a point of order by members of the House.

To be truthful, Mr. Speaker, I have raised some of the those points of order

and I have borne the brunt of having to stand and say that what I said was

unparliamentary, over my career here, and have dutifully withdrawn.

I guess to my colleague's point, I do not necessarily share the point that

he has made, because if you, in your capacity as Chair of the House, hear

unparliamentary language, there is an obligation on you to raise it before

anyone else does. If you do not hear it, there is an obligation on the members'

part to raise it to your attention to investigate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a brief response to that comment there.

I only pointed out the references to the issues you raised regarding

unparliamentary language as one example of what was a sense of unfairness by the

Opposition. The second issue I pointed out was concerning the brevity of

questions, and how the time limits are applied.

I mean, we also had the issue of - as the Government House Leader says, it is

recognized in our system, albeit not in our Standing Orders, that there is a

preamble to your first question, and the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans was

denied that

preamble by the Chair today. That is where we have a perception,

which I think is properly grounded, that the rules are not being applied

equitably. That is why we raised the issues, not to disparage the Chair but to

just see, if the rules are there, that we all live by them and we have them

applied fairly.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe I take the comments by the Opposition House

Leader in the intent in which I hope they were presented, not to challenge the

Chair, because the Chair is not to be challenged on these particular matters.

However, I want to make a few comments, and the comment is to the extent that I

have always tried to be very, very fair.

We have had a 35 per cent increase in the number of questions asked in

Question Period since I have assumed the Chair. Over 900 questions were asked in

the last session, an average of seventeen questions per day. That, I think,

indicates that I have tried to facilitate the posing of questions and the

answering of questions; however, in doing so, it has always been my position

that the Opposition always have more questions than there is time in which they

can be asked, so therefore we have tried to push it forward. This why, from time

to time, I ask ministers if they would take their places. I do believe the

record will show that is not a hesitation that I have whatsoever, to ask any

minister, or any member of the government, when they have reached about a

minute, to take their place. The same is true of people who are asking

questions.

However, the point made by the Opposition House Leader, in no parliamentary

references is there any connection directly between the length of time a

question takes to be asked and the length of time that can be taken to answer

the question. In Ottawa, there is a thirty-five second time limit. Recently now,

in British Columbia, there is a one minute time limit for the first question,

thirty seconds for the supplementary, and twenty seconds for the third or the

second supplementary, with equal amounts of time for members to answer those

particular questions.

I have asked the two House Leaders, together with the other members of the

committee, if this is a concern. If you wish to see the rules applied

differently, then we have a Standing Orders Committee, and I would ask that this

matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

In the meantime, I will try my best every day - and, again, on

preambles, I

do know the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans was getting into, I thought, an

extensive

preamble and I did caution her on it. I did not prevent her from going

and putting forward her complete question, and she did take the full length of

time that she wanted.

Again, I would ask these members who feel like that, that they would address

their issues in the privacy of the Standing Orders Committee.

Thank you.

It being Wednesday, I assume we have the consent of the House to continue

with routine business.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we would ask leave of the Government House

Leader - I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with him. We realize that

on Private Members' Day normally at 3:00 p.m. we get into private members'

issues. There have been discussions between myself and the Government House

Leader, and we agreed and he indicated to the House yesterday that we would be

doing government business today rather than private members'. Given that we

have already had that change, I am wondering if the Government House Leader and

his caucus would grant leave to have a few petitions at least, albeit we are at

3:03 p.m., past the 3:00 p.m. time limit.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We will continue, then, with routine proceedings.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am tabling today in the House the

Report of the Public Tender Act Exemptions for the month of November 2004,

December 2004, January 2005, and February 2005.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the crab harvesters in my

district and in the District of Burin-Placentia West, and in fact the entire

Burin Peninsula.

I had the opportunity to meet with the fisherpeople last Friday, actually,

and they expressed some real serious concerns about what is happening with the

Minister of Fisheries and with his determination, I guess, to just push ahead

with the recommendation that is contrary to the Dunne report.

They are asking the minister and they are asking, I know, their own MHAs,

because I do know that I was asked to give a copy of the petition to the Member

for Burin-Placentia West, and they asked that he would present it in the House

as well, recognizing that he is, of course, a member of the government, and

hoping that by presenting that petition on their behalf he would, in fact, have

some influence on the minister.

I am hoping that he will rise today and present that petition, as his

constituents have asked him to, and the message that I delivered to him on their

behalf as well as a copy of the petition.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where the minister, on a

couple of occasions, actually promised the FFAW that he would consult with them.

I have seen the correspondence. I have seen the letters in which he agreed that

before anything happened with respect to the fishery, to the crab fishery in

particular, that he would in fact consult with the FFAW. That has not happened

and I can tell you that the harvesters are feeling hard done by, as are the

plant workers. What they are saying is that if you look at the fishery - and I

think we all recognize that without the harvesters and without the plant

workers, but in particular without the harvesters, there would not be a fishery.

As much as processors want to process fish, if there are no fish to process then

of course there will not be a fishery.

What has happened here is that the primary stakeholder in this whole process

has been left out. They have not been consulted. In fact, what they are

expecting to happen to them is something that would affect their very

livelihood, where in fact their income will be limited; where in fact they will

not be able to have the same quota as they have had in the past and, in fact,

where they feel that they may as well not fish if it means that, at the end of

the day, they have to abide by what the Minister of Fisheries wants to do, is

determined to do, and is forcing on the harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is interesting, because when I met with the crab fisherpeople they also

talked about the cod fishery and what is happening there, and they really felt

that this minister has betrayed them. The minister who boasts about having

worked for the FFAW. The minister who boasts about knowing the fishery, being

apart of the fishery. They really believe that he has betrayed them. He has let

them down. They put it in much stronger words than I can use here in the House

of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you, they are really hoping that he

will give this some sober, second thought. They hope that when he hears from

them and their concerns, which are very legitimate, that he will in fact agree

to meet with them; that he will sit down with the FFAW and that he will listen

to their concerns and make them a part of this consultation process. That is all

that we are asking the minister. Instead of forging ahead with a report or a

decision that is contrary to the Dunne report, that in fact he do exactly what

Mr. Dunne recommended, and that is before introducing any kind of production

quotas that in fact he consult with all of the stakeholders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present on behalf of several people in my district:

WHEREAS we do not believe that the new RMS system will create stability in

our community; and

WHEREAS by following the formula of a share equal to not less than 90% of an

average of the last three years the proposed RMS system will significantly

reduce the amount of crab that our plant, Deep Atlantic Seaproducts Inc. will be

allowed to process; and

WHEREAS with the new equipment that Deep Atlantic Seaproducts Inc. has

installed in 2004 we, the workers of Deep Atlantic, need even more crab to

obtain the number of hours required to receive EI; and

WHEREAS we feel that Deep Atlantic Seaproducts should not receive any amount

of crab that is less than the amount processed in 2004;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the hon. Trevor Taylor, Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the provincial government to not implement this

new RMS system.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by around 250-odd people in my district to

present this petition on their behalf and I gladly stand on my feet today and do

that on behalf of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's District.

Over the past couple of weeks, since the announcement was made on the new

plan to address the Raw Material Sharing system in the Province, I have had the

opportunity to attend three meetings in my district, one with the plant workers

in St. Mary's and two with fishermen in my district, one in Admiral's Beach

on Friday afternoon and also in Riverhead.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns and issues out there in relation to

the system that the minister has brought forward and I brought those concerns

back to the minister. I have fully informed the minister of those meetings, what

occurred at those meetings, the ideas and suggestions that have come from those

meetings, and put it back to the minister.

As I said, the fishery is a major industry, not only in my District of

Placentia & St. Mary's but, indeed, throughout the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue that many, many communities depend on

to survive. We have seen our share, over the past ten or twelve or fifteen

years, of what the downturn in the fishery can do to our communities, and

whatever process that is put in place, whatever process that the government

comes forward with, is something that is fair and equitable to everybody who are

out there. The concerns of the people in my district, Mr. Speaker, I can

guarantee you, have been brought to the minister and the minister is fully aware

of the concerns of the people of Placentia & St. Mary's and I look forward

to working with the minister on finding a suitable solution to the concerns that

people have in my district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a number of petitions from harvesters

and plant workers around the Province, but today I have been asked to present a

petition on behalf of the residents of Fogo Island pertaining to the health care

facility out there that was opened last year - or I should have said, half

opened last year by this Tory government.

Mr. Speaker, five years ago the Liberal government committed to and built a

twenty-bed health care facility on Fogo Island. Unfortunately, for the residents

of that Island, the building was not slated to open until after the 2003

election; the election that the Tory government won, I might add, unfortunately

for the people of Fogo Island. Because during, to, and prior to the election,

today's Premier of the Province met with various groups around Fogo Island and

committed that if he and his caucus were elected, then they would, indeed, see

their hospital opened. What the Premier did not tell them, Mr. Speaker, what he

did not, and he misled them by not saying it, is that he only planned -

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

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, the member has been advised

today. We had a ruling yesterday, no member on either that side or this side can

impute a motive on another member. In other words, you cannot say that member

misled him or he misled, or I cannot say about the Member for Twillingate that

he is standing now presenting a petition misleading people. I am not allowed to

say that. It is unparliamentary.

As I said yesterday, the member can say that he felt that the government did

it or, as a government, we did but he cannot single out any particular member,

whether that be a Premier or any other member in this House, and purposely

impute a motive by saying that a particular member, no matter who he or she may

be or no matter what district he or she may represent, he cannot impute that

motive.

I will just ask the member to withdraw it, and just be conscious of that

tried and true parliamentary principle in the House of Assembly.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I personally must admit, I did not hear the actual context in which the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo used the words but I would submit, and I

realize that the Chair likes to use Marleau as an authority in this particular

House, but that does not detract from the point and fact, of course, that

Beauchesne is, indeed, still an authority, albeit the Chair prefers the other.

I would submit to the Chair, in this particular case, that context is what is

crucial. In Beauchesne, for example, just to use a word in and of itself does

not make it necessarily unparliamentary. We have, for example - and I refer the

Chair to Beauchesne, page 147, where they talk about, since 1958 certain words

and phrases have been ruled to be parliamentary. Also, on page 148 - actually,

it is in alphabetical order - it says misleading and misled have been held to be

parliamentary. So, it is fine - and I agree with the Government House Leader,

there are times when phrases are used that are, indeed, unparliamentary but

simple use of the word does not make it unparliamentary.

Now, I did not hear the context so I may be at a loss here and totally out of

line as to what the Chair would rule and say that the context here was

unparliamentary, but I would just say this for the point of ensuring that the

Chair takes it into consideration, at least, that it need not absolutely be

unparliamentary just because it is sometimes held to be unparliamentary. The

context must be considered here.

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

the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the statement of the point of order by the Government House Leader

is actually inaccurate. The word mislead, by itself, does not impute motives at

all. Many things can be misleading. The concern that speakers have had over the

use of the word mislead has to do with whether or not someone is actually

accused of deliberately misleading the House, deliberately misleading,

generally, the House, not misleading someone else. If the suggestion is that

someone is misled, then that is not unparliamentary by itself. If the suggestion

is that someone is deliberately misleading - for example, lying, intending to

mislead, intending to do something - that is a different matter. I do not

believe that the context that I heard the speaker, the Member for Fogo &

Twillingate, give was that he said that it was a deliberate intention to mislead

the House of Assembly, which is, I think, what the parliamentary rule applies

to.

I think if Your Honour has a good look, or listens to Hansard, and listens to

the recording, he will find that certainly in my assessment there did not appear

to be a suggestion that the minister was misleading the House of Assembly, and

deliberately doing so, which is what the rule applies to.

I would urge Your Honour to listen carefully to that and apply the rule based

on the context as indicated by the Opposition House Leader, and not just say

that the word mislead itself, and by itself, is unparliamentary.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this.

First of all, to my hon. colleague for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and my hon.

colleague the Opposition House Leader, the point that I raised upon was not that

the word mislead was unparliamentary. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite.

I even advised all members of the House that there are many ways in which you

can say and use the word mislead, or misleading, or government has misled, as I

said yesterday.

The Leader of the Opposition, if you notice, did exactly yesterday what the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo did. The Leader of the Opposition stood

yesterday and said the Premier misled somebody. I stood on a point of order

after Question Period. The Leader of the Opposition withdrew, and he said: I

will gladly take the Government House Leader's advice and say the government

misled.

The fact of the matter is this - and herein lies the pith and substance of

the argument - one: it is all about context. The statements made by the Member

for Twillingate & Fogo, in my view, and it is the reason why I rose on a

point of order, go to imputing a motive on another member, which is not

parliamentary, and you cannot use one principle, Mr. Speaker - there is a

long-standing tradition and practice in parliamentary procedure and

parliamentary law that you cannot use one principle of parliamentary law or

parliamentary practice to abrogate another principle. They are there to support

one another.

The fact of the matter is this: There are many ways in which the word mislead

and misleading can be used, and are used often. I use those often myself at

times, but the fact of the matter is that does not, in any way, shape or form,

allow another member to stand up and accuse one other member of misleading

people in this House or intentionally misleading, because it does impute a

motive on another member and that clearly, Mr. Speaker, is unparliamentary.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must address the point raised by the Government House Leader again, because

he says that you cannot use one rule to try to get around another problem. I

have no problem with that issue, but also you cannot say that because there was

a ruling in one particular instance, based upon some particular specific facts,

that the same rule must be applied in every other set of facts that are even

similar to it later.

For example, the fact that the Opposition Leader stood up yesterday, when he

used the word misled, and withdrew, I think that speaks to the credibility of

the Opposition Leader because he acknowledged in that particular case, in that

particular context, in that particular fact situation, that he intentionally,

deliberately, was accusing someone of misleading them. That speaks to his

honesty and his credibility. That is not what we are dealing with here today.

You must consider the context of each particular member's utterances in what

they have said.

If this Member for Twillingate & Fogo gets up and says, I did not

insinuate anything being deliberately done to mislead anybody here, that is his

call. You have to consider the context in which he said it. I am often misled. I

am often misled by statements in this House by the government, but it does not

mean I am misled by them deliberately. I am sometimes misled because they have

not given the full facts, or they have said one thing that led me down another

trail to think something else.

I would not accuse the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for example, of

deliberately trying to mislead me, but it does not take away from the fact that

because he did not tell me all the story that I am still misled. If I have to

worry every time I use the utterance of the word misled in here that I am going

to stand up and withdraw because I said something, that, to me, is a way of the

government always suggesting impure motives on my part, when I had no intention

of doing such.

It is a very delicate case. To say someone deliberately misled somebody is

one issue, but to always be popping up and saying: Oh, he used the word misled,

unparliamentary, withdraw. I did not cast any negative aspersions on anybody if

I genuinely was misled, whether it was intentional or not. If I was genuinely

misled, I am entitled to say that. So, the context must be considered, and we

were not trying to use one rule to beat another problem. The context rule must

be considered.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is well aware of what Beauchesne would say in these matters.

Beauchesne tried to codify the various words which have been ruled as

unparliamentary and parliamentary in various contexts. As we note in Marleau and

Montpetit, it says,"Since the Speaker must rule on the basis of the context

in which the language was used, points of order raised in regard to questionable

language must be raised as soon as possible after the irregularity has

occurred." And, of course, that happened here.

"In dealing with unparliamentary language,..." - again quoting from

Marleau and Montpetit, it says - "...the Speaker takes into account the

tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words

were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not

the remarks created disorder in the Chamber."

It also says, "The codification of unparliamentary language has proven

impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the

Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn."

In this particular case it is not unparliamentary to use the word misled;

however, we have to be always cognizant of whether it is directed against a

collective group. What might apply to a collective group, for example, like a

government, or like members of the Executive Council, would not necessarily

apply in the same manner when it is said to an individual. For example, I would

say to all honorable members that what you might apply collectively to a group

may be passable in parliamentary language, but if you specifically say it

directly to a member of the House then you are compromising the integrity of

that particular member.

I would say to all members that we should always be aware that the use of

offensive, provocative language in the House is strictly forbidden, and words

that would take away from a member's integrity have to be ruled by the Speaker

as being unparliamentary.

In this particular context, the speaker heard the Member for Twillingate

& Fogo in reference to, I think, a past campaign, or some issues in his

district, say, the Premier misled the people, and so on and so forth. I would

ask him if he would withdraw those comments.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize I was going to cause such a kerfuffle over

the word misled. If I have offended anyone's sensibilities here I will gladly

apologize for that and withdraw it. Mr. Speaker, I guess I am going to have to

rephrase what I said. I will withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thank the hon. member. However, the member should also know that there is a

three-minute time limit on his petition. I think, in fairness to the hon.

member, we will permit him to continue. He has about a minute or so left.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I had a minute. I won't question your

judgement, but I think I have approximately three. Anyway, I will withdraw the

statement about misleading and I will let the people in the Province decide what

word they want to put on it.

What I said is that the Premier of the Province, prior to and during the last

election campaign, went to Fogo Island, met with various groups, including town

councils in the area, and told them that: If I am elected, we will open your

hospital on Fogo Island. Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, ten of

the twenty beds in that facility were never opened. I will let the people of the

Province decide whether that was a promise issued and a promise kept. In my

books, even though the word misleading is inappropriate, and I won't use it in

referring to the Premier again, I will let the people of the Province decide

what word they would like to put on a situation that involved what I just talked

about.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there are still ten beds on Fogo

Island that need to be opened. There are ten beds out there, five acute care

beds and five chronic care beds, that need to be opened. Right now we have five

of each and there are people, elderly people for the most part, who show up at

that hospital on various occasions and are being told to go home, because we don't

have a bed for you, when there are ten rooms in that facility that had ten beds

that were taken back from them by the Tory Government and shipped to Gander

under the cloak of darkness. They are told they either have an option of

sleeping on a stretcher in the hallway or going back home.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that in this day and age where we have

surplus budgets, that this is not acceptable to the people of Fogo Island,

especially in light of the fact that the Minister of Finance and the Premier

were up in the last few days announcing three new chronic care facilities, one

for his own district, I might say, one for the Premier's district. I bet - as

he so eloquently preaches when he stands in this House, I made the commitment to

the people of Corner Brook that they were going to have a long-term care

facility. The Premier also made the commitment to the people of Fogo Island that

he was going to open the beds in that hospital but he did not do it. Mr.

Speaker, I think that is shameful!

The fact of the matter is, the Premier spoke this afternoon and said that he

did not realize that they were using five gallon buckets in the cancer clinic in

Grand Falls, and had he known this, he would have acted earlier. I guess what he

is saying to the people on Fogo Island is if they are ill and they are sick and

are forced to sleep in the hallways of the brand new facility that we have out

there, and they are forced to throw up in a five-gallon bucket, then maybe he

will look at the possibility of opening the ten beds that he deliberately - I

cannot say the word.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, all I am asking him to do is honour the promise that he

made during the election and open the ten beds before he builds ten more chronic

care beds around the Province. Open the ten that exist currently in a brand new

facility on Fogo Island so that the elderly and the chronically ill will not

have to leave Fogo Island and go and spend their last days in a facility in

Corner Brook or in Clarenville. That is all I am asking: Live up to the

commitments. Live up to his own words. He talked about Paul Martin's

commitment and how he should honour it. I ask the Premier to live up to the

commitment that he made to the people of Fogo Island and open the ten beds that

are so dramatically and so drastically needed on that Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I have a message from His Honour, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The Speaker has received the following message from His Honour the Lieutenant

Governor:

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I

transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending 31 March 2005, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance

with the provisions of

section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I

recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ________________________________________________________

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move motion 2, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, to move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions relating to the

granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is move that this House resolve itself into a Committee

of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 3,

An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For

Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial

Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public

Service.

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to confirm my time to speak on this bill.

CHAIR: The first member speaking on this particular resolution will have

fifteen minutes and the next speaker from the government side will have fifteen

minutes, and each alternate speaker will have ten.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 3, I talked about this bill in Question Period about less than an hour

ago. What this bill is doing is asking this hon. House to agree to allowing the

government, of which they are the majority, to spend $117 million to pay off The

Rooms, which is $43,500,000, and a lot of other schools totaling $73,600,000,

for a total of $117,100,000.

Now, here we are today, March 23, 2005, where the issue of the day is the

suffering of the people who use the Grand Falls-Windsor cancer clinic.

Government has the nerve - I guess it is all about choices and priorities - to

come to this House of Assembly when they know that so many people in this

Province are in such dire need. They are asking all of us, the Opposition and

other members in this House, the New Democratic Party, and their own caucus -

who are not allowed to speak against the government - to collectively say: Yes,

go ahead and do this. You can spend $117 million. You see, that is a surplus.

What that means is that government took in more money this year than they needed

to look after the day-to-day operation of running the government in this

Province. They decided to fabricate and create a deficit of $14 million. In

other words, they had $103 million extra. They could have used it to look after

any of the needs out here in the Province. They could have looked after Grand

Bank. We have a gazebo, I guess, out there blowing in the wind. A steel frame, a

skeleton, that should have been covered now and well under way to being opened.

It should have been opened next April. The people in Grand Bank have been left

out in the cold. There is no compassion for those people.

The people in Grand Falls-Windsor; the Premier tried to worm out of the fact

that he knew nothing about the situation in Grand Falls-Windsor. I had all I

could do to stay here and listen to that rubbish yesterday, today, and the day

before. He tried to say on one media, on Open Line, that the Member for

Windsor-Springdale was very vocal on the issue. Then on the other media, he got

on last night on NTV and said that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, which is

me, did no lobbying. I knew what he was up to, and I asked my secretary today to

go and look and see how many times I had brought up the issue of the cancer

clinic in the House last year. Not even counting this year, there were 111

times. I had a folder full of news releases, where I made everybody aware of the

plight of the cancer clinic patients. There were numerous newspaper articles in

our local paper called The Advertiser . I have been on Open Line shows. I

have done everything I could to make this government stand up and notice the

plight of the cancer patients in Grand Falls-Windsor. Then he had the nerve to

get up and say there was no lobbying being done, but what drew his attention to

it was when he saw the graphics on television of people, cancer survivors,

patients, throwing up in a five-gallon bucket.

What kind of a statement is that for a Premier to make, that today he would

rather come into this House and say: I want $43,500,000 to pay off The Rooms. He

hasn't been down yet to cut the blue ribbon on The Rooms facility. It was a

red ribbon that had agreed to it in the beginning, but when he opens it in June

there will be a blue one that he is going to snip with the scissors. Now, he

hasn't been down there yet to cut that ribbon but he thinks, in his mind

today, he would like to $43,500,000 to pay off that mortgage. Wouldn't that be

wonderful, if we could all pay off our mortgage today and be debt free? Wouldn't

that be grand?

Now, there are lots of schools around the Province that should be into a

long-term repayment period, but the Premier and his government today are looking

for approval from this House of Assembly for $73,600,000 to pay off the

mortgages on those schools which are long-term. All together, that is

$117,100,000. Now, I would ask the people of the Province today: What could you

do with $117 million? What could you do with it? We know what they could do with

it for the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I heard the Premier; last night the Premier called Open Line. He talked Linda

Swain - that was 8:30 last night - and he said: You know, there is not enough

money. There are not enough funds to do the cancer clinic in Grand

Falls-Windsor.

Well, I say to the Premier today, there is plenty of money to do the cancer

clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. All you have to do is skive out $3.2 million of

this big amount here. You have from now until the end of March. That is last

year's money and you are trying to spend it before the end of the government

year, which is March 31.

If the Premier had any kind of compassion for the people in Grand

Falls-Windsor, which is a regional facility - they look after people from Baie

Verte to Notre Dame Bay and down the South Coast - if the Premier was able to

stand up and negotiate a $2 billion Atlantic Accord that is going to be of great

benefit to the people of this Province, wouldn't you think that he would take

$3.2 million of this $117 million and say, I am not going to prolong that agony

for you people who are taking cancer treatment in Grand Falls-Windsor. There is

no need of you to sit elbow to elbow, next to somebody who is going through the

very same situation as you are.

He said: I understand. All of us here in this House, all of us here in this

Province, know what it is like to be touched with cancer. He said it himself;

but, how can he say it out of one side of his mouth and then say: I am going to

send the Minister of Health out next week to have a look at the situation, and

then chat with the board and see if we can remedy this situation. You know, the

Premier has been dancing around this issue.

The Central West Health Care Board - I have a job to call them anything

different. I know they have a new name now, but in all my political years that

is what they were called. You see, they presented the same financial request to

this government last year as they presented to us when we approved it. They

presented it again in November, 2004. The figures never changed, so for the

Premier to stand on his feet today and say that he knew nothing about this

cancer situation, this desperate, deplorable situation....

I heard, last night, the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He was taking a lot

of heat because, you know, he is supposed to toe the government line. He is a

member of the Progressive Conservative government. I have to give him credit,

because it took courage last night for him to get on Open Line. We have not

heard anything from him in the past. I know the subject is close to his heart,

but I guess he was unable to make the divorce from government to go out on a

limb and say: I care about it and I am doing what I can about it. He actually

said on Open Line last night, that he has received hundreds of e-mails and

letters and every one of them were copied to the Premier; every one of them. You

know, a lot of the e-mails and letters that the Member for Windsor-Springdale

received, I received them, and I know what he is saying is true because I know

who they are copied to.

That was opposite to what the Premier said, when the Premier stood in his

place here and in the media and said, he did not know anything about the cancer

clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. He said he did not. He also said, the Member for

Windsor-Springdale, last night, he made the case to the two members of Cabinet

in Central Newfoundland. That would be the Minister of Transportation and Works

and it would also be the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and most

recently for Labrador Affairs. Both of those are very honorable colleagues of

his and mine. I even looked it up in Hansard and the Minister of Transportation

and Works said last year that he considered the cancer clinic a very high

priority.

Now, what happened to this issue? The board in Grand Falls-Windsor made a

special request in early January. They wanted the Minister of Health to come in

and see the facility. The former Minister of Health, the Member for Topsail, who

sits in the back benches now, who defied the Premier - and that is her reward,

the back benches - she was out there with the Member for Windsor-Springdale

right after last year's Budget. She knew what the situation was like.

The Clerk of the Council, who was the Deputy Minister of Health at the time

it was approved by our government, in June of 2003, he said that was a fine plan

and he agreed with every aspect of it. You know he is called upon, he is the

Clerk of the Council, he is the top official in this government. He speaks

whenever he is asked an opinion in Cabinet on the matter. I know full well that

he was solicited for his opinion. He would not be able to say anything but the

fact that it was a good plan for the people and the financing was in order and

the board could handle it and it should be done.

We know why it was not done. The Premier can scramble all he wishes after the

Budget. He did not, in his view, feel it was necessary to do or it would have

been included in the Budget. It was a public issue all around the Province and

it had a lot of lobbying, it had a lot of attention, but this government did not

see it as being their priority. They would rather come to the House today and

ask for the surplus, the manufactured crisis, a manufactured deficit. They would

rather take $117 million of the people's money in this Province and they would

rather go pay off the mortgage on The Rooms, or they would rather pay off the

mortgage on a school that was meant to be paid off, probably, over twenty years.

What does that tell you about a government that would rather do that than

look after people's health? What does that tell you about a government that

would rather spend extra money, the people's money - it is not the Tory

government's money, it is the taxpayers, the residents of this Province. They

would rather take the $117 million and pay it on a mortgage for The Rooms than

look after people's health all around this Province.

Mr. Chairman, the people around this Province have seen - I heard a caller

last night from Grand Falls-Windsor. I know the gentleman, and he spoke about

his wife who has just been diagnosed with cancer in January of this year. He

told me he went with his wife for treatment, and he said he felt really

uncomfortable because he wanted to be with his wife, but he knew the nurse, who

was treating the other person next to him, had a lot of private matters to

discuss with that patient. He said, he decided he would leave the room because

it was uncomfortable for this other patient. They could not get to hear what the

nurse was saying. You know people do not want to have their private matters

discussed in public.

He also said that a lot of patients' families come with them to accompany

them for treatment. That is a part of the healing process. Naturally, any of us

who might be diagnosed with, or are going through cancer treatment, would like

the love and support of our families with us. Many times these family members

may be using the washroom facilities and all of a sudden there might be a need

for a cancer patient, being hooked up to IV and the chemicals, to actually have

to throw up. He did say, last night, that sitting in a chair for three or four

hours receiving chemotherapy usually has one or two effects. It usually causes

nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. It is bad enough for that to happen in the privacy

of your own home, but when you have to go and barrel your way through other

people sitting around in a corridor, or strangers, and you are uncomfortable and

you are afraid you are not going to make it on time, and you have an alternative

there, a five-gallon bucket, let's face it, that really takes away the dignity

of an individual.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Windsor-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, would you be so kind as to give me one extra

minute?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The member has leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to keep on about this cancer clinic as long as I get a chance to

speak, whatever form that might be. I want the Premier to take into account what

I have said and what others have said, and let him show the people of this

Province that he does have a heart and he is not interested in taking $117

million of the people's money and just putting it on to pay off a mortgage

when there are so many people out there suffering.

I don't know if the Premier is watching me today, but I do want you, anyone

who is going to speak to the Premier, to tell him. He has the power. The buck

stops with the Premier of this Province. You know, he could have stood in the

House on Budget Day, the day before Budget Day, any day he wanted to, he could

have stood in the House today and said: I am pleased to stand in my place and

announce the cancer clinic for the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding

area. He could do that. It would be a small amount to take from this $117

million, the people's money that has to be spent. Something has to be done

with it before the end of March.

Mr. Premier, if you are listening, take to heart the people's concerns and

do the right thing, and announce tomorrow morning, the very first thing, the

cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to stand here this afternoon for ten or fifteen minutes, I guess,

and pass a few comments on Bill 3 on what is commonly referred to as

Supplementary Supply.

Mr. Chairman, starting off, I would like to just comment for a little while

on some of the previous member's speech as it relates to the cancer clinic in

Grand Falls-Windsor. Mr. Chairman, fair enough, I say to the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans. We understand where she is coming from, as we understand where

the Member for Windsor-Springdale and other members who represent constituencies

that surround our part of Central Newfoundland and feed into the health care

facilities in Central Newfoundland, and the people in those districts who depend

on those facilities for cancer treatment, just as we understand the concerns of

many people throughout all of our Province as it relates to health care

provision, health care services and what have you.

Mr. Chairman, it is fair enough, I believe, for the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans to advocate on behalf of the people that she represents for a new

cancer clinic in that region. We all recognize the needs of the health care

system in our Province and that is why we have made some of the investments and

announced some of the investments that we have on Monday as it relates to the

Budget process, going forward in 2005-2006 and onward into the future.

Mr. Chairman, specifically as it relates to Grand Falls-Windsor cancer

clinic, we have a newly constituted Regional Integrated Health Authority that is

just coming into legal effect and force next week, I guess it is; next week, the

end of the month, March 31. Mr. Chairman, we want to give that Regional

Integrated Health Authority in Central Newfoundland, just as we want to do with

the Regional Integrated Health Authority in Western, on the Northern Peninsula,

in Labrador, in Eastern Newfoundland and the Avalon, we want to give those

boards the opportunity to look at their operations, look at the needs of the

people in their area. We recognize many of the needs that these people have, but

you put a board in place, you put these Regional Integrated Health Authorities

in place so that they can look at the needs, assess the needs and assess how

best to meet the needs of the people in the various regions.

At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, I am certain that this government will

respond to the needs of cancer patients and their families in Central

Newfoundland, but when we do it, we will do it right and we will do it on the

best advice given to us by the medical community and the people who are

responsible for the provision of health care in Central Newfoundland. That is

the appropriate and prudent way to go forward in situations like this, in all

situations. I understand fully what the people opposite are saying, as I

understand what my caucus colleagues have said on these matters.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: No, no, I am not saying that. Don't go putting words in my

mouth, I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: I do not need anybody to put words in my mouth. I am quite

capable of doing it myself.

Mr. Chairman, I say there is nobody suggesting that there was anything wrong

with what the previous board did, or what the previous board advocated, or what

the previous board proposed. The fact of the matter is, things have changed in

Central Newfoundland. Things have changed for government. Things have changed as

it relates to the funding available to government and we believe that the most

appropriate thing to do for all people in the Province is lay out and abide by a

plan for health care that delivers health care in the most cost-effective way

for the people of the Province, bearing in mind that at the end of the day, the

more efficient that we are, the better and the more accessible health care will

be to all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we do not have that

driving our decision making, then we will end up making the wrong decisions at

the end of the day.

Mr. Chairman, it is similar to the situation on the Northern Peninsula. I was

up on the Northern Peninsula last week again. On Friday I met with a group of

people who are very concerned about the status of health care on the Northern

Peninsula, particularly as it relates to what was the Grenfell Regional Health

Services Board. The situation there as it relates to the Hay report, people were

very concerned about that, and so they should be concerned. I understand their

concerns and I, in many respects, share their concerns, but I could not go and

promise to the people in St. Anthony last Friday afternoon that we were going to

do this, or do that, or do something else. That is why we established the board.

That is why we put a new regional integrated health authority in place. Now that

board, which is now responsible for Labrador and the northern half of the

Northern Peninsula will have to look at a population of 40,000-plus, as opposed

to a population of 16,000 in what was the Grenfell catchment area.

When you look at that type of information, Mr. Chairman, there are

considerations that you might make today that you would not make when Hay, for

example, did their report, or when Grenfell looked at their operations, or

whatever. That has to be factored in because, at the end of the day, we want to

give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the best possible health care that

they can get. The best possible health care in close proximity to where people

live to the extend that we can do it, and within our fiscal capacity to do so.

If we do not try and do that, we will fail. By making quick political decisions,

and those types of decisions of that nature, that is where you get into trouble.

That is where people end up getting compromised at the end of the day, and that

is how we ended up in the position that we are in right now.

Mr. Chairman, we have been in government for seventeen months. The previous

government sat here for 174 months. It is funny how now they have all the

answers for all of the problems in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we did not have

such a monumental task and a monumental fiscal problem to overcome when we came

to government seventeen months ago, maybe some more of these issues could have

been dealt with in the last seventeen months. We had a monumental fiscal

situation that we had to confront, and thanks to the efforts of our Premier and

this government, we have been able to meet a lot of the challenges that we had

confronted seventeen months ago.

As a result of the approach that this government took over the last seventeen

months, we have been able to make remarkable progress in turning around the

fiscal situation of this Province to the point where today we are debating a

bill where we are going to pay off two long-term mortgages. And what is wrong

with that? Debt reduction, Mr. Chairman, that will free up more money for the

people of this Province to reinvest back into the health care services. If you

do not try and do that, you will continue down the same road that the previous

Administration was on. Mr. Chairman, we were on that road for 174 months and

thank God, we got off it seventeen months ago.

Mr. Chairman, there are many, many demands on the fiscal purse of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; many of them. Many of them will be met

over the course of this mandate and many of them will be met over the course of

the next mandate - whoever the government is, hopefully it will be us. But, Mr.

Chairman, one budget - as the Government House Leader has said, I am sure in

this House, time and again - does not make a government. What gets dealt with in

one budget is not necessarily everything that gets dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, last year we were facing a deficit that was projected in the

order of $1.1 billion and we have been successful in reducing it to less than

$500 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That is a far cry, Mr. Chairman, from the track that the

previous Administration was on for 174 months where we had increasing, and

increasing, and increasing levels of deficit and debt continuously for that

whole period, or just about that whole period. That is the legacy that the

previous Administration left to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

children of Newfoundland and Labrador and the grandchildren of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is why it is so difficult for us to deal with the many demands on

the health care system and the education system and the transportation system

and what have you. What we are trying to do is lay out a plan for Newfoundland

and Labrador. A plan that invests in health care, education, transportation and

infrastructure, municipal infrastructure, and invest in a strategic way; a way

that meets the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not in a way

that meets the political needs of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, that is the track that we are on and that is the track that we

are going to stay on. We have delivered two Budgets so far, and the last Budget

was pretty difficult. This one was a lot easier. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, the

next one will be easier still, and the one after that will be easier again, but

it will be easier because of prudent management and the right approach to

handling the finances of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If we stick to that approach, Mr. Chairman, we will be able

to ensure that the people in St. Anthony and surrounding areas, the people on

the Northern Peninsula, the people in Labrador, the people in Grand

Falls-Windsor and Gander and Burin and Grand Bank, and everywhere else in this

Province, will be able to have the health care services that they need. Because

the track that we were on, with the deficits that we were accumulating and the

debt that we were accumulating over the past number of years was surely setting

us to a point where we would not be able to deliver those services because we

would not be able to finance those services.

Mr. Chairman, I know I only have a short period of time to speak here this

afternoon, but that is essentially what I wanted to say. You know, we can make

short-term decisions. We can make short-term decisions that give us short-term

popularity, but that is not going to serve the people of any part of this

Province well for the long term.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to petitions presented here over the past couple of

days as they related to decisions that we are taking - not I - we are taking, as

a government, as it relates to the management of the fishery, decisions that the

previous Administration, actually, on a couple of occasions, tried to take - on

a couple of occasions tried to take - but could not carry it out, could not

carry it off.

What we are trying to do is not look out five to ten months, as the previous

Administration did. I do not care how popular or unpopular I am in this Province

in the short term, as long as when I walk away from government, whenever that

is, that the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is in a better position than

when I came here.

Mr. Chairman, the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is not positioned to

be competitive in five to ten years, and everybody in the fishery and in

Newfoundland and Labrador knows that. If we are not competitive internationally,

and if we are not competitive on the ground in Newfoundland and Labrador so that

we can recruit the young people who our industry is going to desperately need in

the medium to long term, then what is going to happen to the fishing industry of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

I was in a processing facility in Arnold's Cove about four weeks ago.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: We bought that place, Sir. We bought that for $3.5 million,

and saved that region.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, if he

is so quick to find a solution for the people of Harbour Breton now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - how come he wasn't so quick to find a solution for the

people of Burgeo?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible) solution for Harbour Breton, you should have

talked to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile for ten years and tried to find a

solution for over there. Because, Mr. Chairman, as everybody knows, and the

Member for Burgeo & LaPoile knows, finding a solution for the people of the

South Coast is not easy, but we will work with them to try and find it. If we

use the money of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador wisely, we will be in a

better position to be able to deal with it. That is why we managed to put

together some of the things that we did over the past seventeen months. That is

why we have $3.5 million to buy the quotas that National Sea had, that would

have gone out of this Province, probably, if you had been in government, which

is just like what happened to the quotas in Burgeo when you were in government.

That is what happened.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to try and deal with the situation in this

Province. We are going to try and deal with it according to a plan. We are not

going to be doing something for short-term political gains, as we saw in the

past.

The challenges confronting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, both fiscally and as it relates to the

future of rural areas, is not easy, and the people on the other side of the

House knew that when they were there. That is why we saw so many regions of the

Province going down, and that is why we saw so much out-migration from areas

like the Southwest Coast and the Northern Peninsula.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) stop it.

MR. TAYLOR: No, you did not stop it, I say to the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: You stopped it, right?

MR. TAYLOR: I didn't say that we did. The solutions, I just said, for

rural Newfoundland and Labrador are not easy and they are not going to be quick

coming. Mr. Chairman, if you are just going to deal with politically charged

arguments and deal with situations for political popularity in the short term,

you will not fix it.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Member for Grand Bank presenting petitions

here. If you are going to do anything for people in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, then try to do something on regional balance and adjacency. That is

what we are doing in the Raw Material Sharing system -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - similar to what your government did in Labrador. It worked

well in Labrador, and I commend you for doing it. You just did not have the guts

to do it anywhere else in the Province, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that. I believe I might have said

something unparliamentary there, and I withdraw it.

You did not have the intestinal fortitude to carry off the situation that

needed to be carried off in this Province, Mr. Chairman. That was the problem.

MR. JOYCE: Do you think it is going to work?

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if it is going to work, I say to

the Member for Bay of Islands, but I know that the approach they took to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador surely did not work, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That is why we have seen so much out-migration from rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why health care services on the Northern

Peninsula and various other parts of the Province - I heard the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile, a couple of days ago, say that no babies could be born

west of the Wreckhouse. Mr. Chairman, do you know why? Because the policy that

they had for rural Newfoundland resulted in very few babies left, west of the

Wreckhouse. That is the problem, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: I understand I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for

your patience. I am sure I will have an opportunity to carry on this debate over

the next couple of weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I certainly appreciate being informed. It is nice to be educated, especially

when the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, of course, is

informative, but he need not take me out of context. The fact is that I did make

a statement last week, of course, saying that now, if the Hay report, in its

current form, is adopted and implemented, it says there should be no babies born

west of the Wreckhouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: It has nothing to do with the context in which the Member

for The Straits & White Bay North put it, that it has anything to do with

rural development. It has all to do with health care, and we will see where this

minister stands on the Hay report when his distr