April 21, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV

No. 15

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon, the Speaker would wish to make a comment relative to a point

of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition on yesterday to say that the

Speaker is very concerned with matters that affect security to members, to

officers and staff of the House, as well as security issues within the

parliamentary precinct, including the public galleries.

Our Legislature is not a separate entity as is the case in most other

jurisdictions. The House of Assembly is part of the Confederation Building

complex and thus the parliamentary precinct is part of a shared jurisdiction

between the Executive and the Legislative Branches of government.

The lobby of Confederation Building and the security attached thereto is

primarily the responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Works. The

Speaker is in the process of drafting a proposed agreement with the Minister of

Transportation and Works to have the lobby and the north east entrance become a

shared area of jurisdiction. However, this draft proposal has yet to be reviewed

by the Executive Branch and has not yet been reviewed by the Internal Economy

Commission.

Security within the parliamentary precinct is the mandated responsibility of

the Speaker and security issues are reviewed as needed with the

Sergeant-at-Arms.

In the past days, the Speaker has held many discussions with personnel from

the Department of Works as well as with the leadership of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary. Extra security has been assigned to the public galleries in

addition to the regular services provided by the House Commissionaires. In

addition, the Speaker has requested the presence in the parliamentary precinct

of one or more members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary at the Inspector

rank.

Other security resources are available to the Speaker should the need arise.

Security is reviewed each day by the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speaker in

consultation with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary leadership. Decisions are

made on the basis of adequate preparedness and to a level that satisfies the

mandate of the Speaker to adequately address public safety concerns.

The Speaker has been aware of several instances, in recent days, of items

being thrown from the public galleries. While most of these breaches of

parliamentary and common-sense protocol have occurred while the House has been

in recess, these breaches of parliamentary protocol and civil order are

nevertheless of equal concern to the Speaker. Visitors must show respect for the

House and for its members. Violators, if identified, may face charges in

addition to expulsion from the public galleries.

The Speaker is not aware of alcohol being consumed in the galleries or in the

nearby public washrooms. However, beer bottle caps have been found in the

waiting area just outside the public galleries and the RNC have expressed

concerns that some visitors have shown signs of alcoholic consumption. This

matter is of great concern to the Speaker and the issue has been referred to the

RNC for further investigation.

The Speaker also wishes to address the matter of visitor photo

identification. The need for visitor identification in Canadian Parliaments

occurs in various manners. In the House of Commons in Ottawa, sections of the

galleries are reserved for friends of members, and Members of Parliament will

take responsibility for identification and the signing-in process. The area set

aside for the public is relatively small and there is a highly trained House of

Commons security staff that attend to issues that arise.

In the Quebec National Assembly, the Speaker has a staff of eighty members in

the security detail and all visitors to the Assembly must show photo

identification. The Speaker may also issue restrictions on the number to be

admitted to the public galleries. Students and visitors in the Quebec National

Assembly, and visitors from embassies as such, need not show photo

identification but arrangements for these visits have to be made in advance.

In the Ontario Legislative Assembly, all visitors must sign an affidavit

indicating they know the expectations of Parliament regarding decorum. Should a

visitor not follow the expected parliamentary procedures, he or she will be

escorted out of the gallery and charges may be laid and the person banned for a

limited time from attendance in the gallery.

The Speaker understands the need for an upgraded level of security in the

Confederation Building complex. Dialogue is occurring that will provide

additional identification to visitors in the public galleries. In addition,

decisions will be made regarding exemptions; for example, student groups, tours,

seniors, et cetera. Details of these exemptions will be communicated shortly.

The matters raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition regarding new

security measures do not constitute a prima facie case of breach of

parliamentary privilege. There has been no direct interference with the ability

of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties. The Speaker hopes that his

comments will help alleviate some of the concerns raised by the Leader of the

Opposition. However, the Speaker is always ready to discuss these matters in the

privacy of his office.

Finally, the Speaker wishes to comment on the continued disorder that has

occurred in the public galleries each sitting day since Monday, April 11.

Visitors should respect the rules of Parliament, and when disorder occurs all

visitors must respect the authority of the Speaker. This includes any request by

the Speaker for visitors to leave the galleries. Parliament must function, and

the Speaker must assure that it functions properly. The freedom of visitors to

attend in the galleries must not be held at a greater value than the right of

members of Parliament to conduct their business. To that end, the Speaker gives

notice that should the disorder in the galleries continue, the Speaker will have

no choice but to consider the placement of restrictions on visitation in the

galleries.

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling yesterday, where you asked the Premier to

withdraw comments that he made containing the word, cronies, and the Premier

withdraw those remarks. Upon review of Hansard today, I would like to bring to

your attention two remarks yesterday that I feel were unparliamentary and would

ask that members opposite who used those words that inflamed debate - first, on

page 616 of the Hansard of yesterday. I just want to quote, and this is the same

example whereby the Premier was asked to withdraw commentary and the Leader of

the Opposition - I will just quote his words, "...but the Premier and his

particular cronies..." were the words that he used yesterday. That was the

exact phrase that the Premier was asked to withdraw from and I would ask that

the same standard be applied to all members, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, on page 628 of the same Hansard in Question Period yesterday, the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse Clair, in asking a question, said: "Tell me,

Minister, is there no bias in this decision, or is this just any example of

chaos and the corruption...". Mr. Speaker, anytime that a charge of

corruption was leveled against the government, it is my view that either the

charge is substantiated, that it be put forward and be judged as such.

Corruption implies some sort of activity other than - to me, it implies criminal

activity, Mr. Speaker, something that goes towards the notion of what a

government should be about. We take exception to that remark. We believe the

remark was unparliamentary. We believe it imputes motives on members on this

side of the House that do not exist and I would ask you to review those two

comments and rule upon them.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In regards to - I see two parts here, two points on. Actually, the first

being the issue of whether the Premier did or did not unequivocally withdraw his

comments yesterday. I made a submission here in this House that he did not and

we have asked that Your Honour rule on that. I think there is a lot of precedent

and I would refer Your Honour to the March 23, 2005 edition of Hansard, on page

249, when a person of this House was told that it must be unequivocal. I also

refer Your Honour to Hansard of May 19, 2004, when the Chair again, on page

1767, ruled that a withdrawal must be unequivocal. I say to the Government House

Leader, that the Premier's withdrawal yesterday was not unequivocal and he

should be ordered by the Chair to withdraw those remarks.

With regards to the second issue, I did not catch the page that the

Government House Leader referenced in regards to the Leader of the Opposition's

comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 616.

MR. PARSONS: Page 616. I will leave that issue to the Leader of the

Opposition to respond to but we are still awaiting a ruling from this Chair

regarding the Premier's non-withdrawal of his remarks unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of the order raised by the Government

House Leader, the Speaker will review the Hansard and he will also look at the

video tape to make sure that he gets the tone and the manner of the presentation

and make a ruling on tomorrow, and will also make a ruling tomorrow on the other

matter raised by the Opposition House Leader as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to raise a point of privilege again today with respect to

comments, that I will quote from Hansard, that the Premier of the Province made

in this Legislature yesterday which, I believe, does one of two things. It

either shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what the rules are

for the Parliament that we operate in, or it shows, Mr. Speaker, a total and

complete and utter lack of respect for your job in the Chair, and, as a matter

of fact, suggests that you are not competently fulfilling your role.

I do appreciate your ruling today and the clarification with respect to your

role, your rightful and proper role, in terms of guaranteeing the security of

this Legislature and the precincts of the House that you have direct and total

control over. I do understand and appreciate the complication that you have

addressed and made public with respect to the shared jurisdiction being in a

government building, not in a separate premise. I have appreciated, as well, the

invitation to address matters like that on an ongoing basis in the future

privately with you, which I have started to do and will continue to do as we

look to have proper and appropriate security measures in place in the

Legislature under your direction as the Chair.

The point of privilege that I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, arises from

Hansard yesterday. In the Hansard yesterday the Premier, in speaking to the

point of privilege that I raised, and these are his quotes. I have a copy here.

I think the page - let's see if it is at the top here. I will find it quickly

where the point of privilege was raised.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Sure. Okay.

This was copied earlier, before I took the copy from the Table. The quote is

this, in the point of privilege that I raised yesterday, so the Government House

Leader can find it readily, I am sure, of the Premier responding. He said,

"As Premier of the Province, when I am made aware of something by our

Justice officials, by our law enforcement officers, it is incumbent upon me to

act." That is true. He goes on to say, "It is not so much to protect

myself as to protect the people who work in this House of Assembly." That

is not true. That is the point, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to make again in

terms of a point of privilege.

When it comes to protecting and taking action to protect the people who work

in this House of Assembly, it is not the Premier's role. There is a former

Premier sitting here, along with me, who would know full well that the Premier

and the government can make the laws for the land but they do not make the laws

for the Parliament. We are forty-eight equal members in here, and the person we

elect to protect us and decide upon, with our guidance and concurrence, the

rules in this House, is the Speaker, not the Premier of the Province. "It

is to protect the people who actually are in the House of Assembly.", the

Premier said. Remember, it is the context, "... it is incumbent upon me to

act."

So what the Premier is saying, by his words, is that Justice officials

reported something to him about the Legislature and, rather than go to the

Speaker, report it to our Speaker, our collective Speaker, on behalf of the

forty-eight of us, and do the kinds of things that you are now in the process of

doing, he said, "...it is incumbent upon me to act."

I think that infringes upon our privileges. If we have any one member -

because, in here, we are just forty-eight equal members - who suggests that they

have the authority or they have the responsibility to take actions in this

Legislature about security or anything else, then they either do not understand

the role of the Speaker that we have elected, or they are suggesting that the

Speaker should be doing something other than what the Speaker is doing, and, by

inference, is incapable or incompetent of performing the task for which they

have been elected.

The Premier goes on - these are his words, Mr. Speaker, and I will not

belabour this because the point, I believe, is crystal clear - and says: I am

taking these actions. It is incumbent upon me - listen to the language, not to

report it to the Speaker, not to ask the Legislature - it is incumbent upon me

to take these actions for the safety of the people in the galleries.

There is no role, I contend, Mr. Speaker, for any one of us, as members in

this Chamber, to have a direct role in deciding what goes on in that gallery.

That is your job, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us.

Now, we have talked about the issues of getting in here, because we have to

come through a public building that the government does control before you get

here, but once somebody gets in these galleries, once we get in these seats,

once the Clerk sits at the Table, once the Pages come to their job, it is your

role, not the Premier of the Province, to protect the safety and make sure order

is maintained.

That is a serious breach of the privilege of this House, if the Premier of

the Province, as an individual member from the District of Humber West, one of

forty-eight equals in this context, would think and believe - because he

obviously does, from his words - that he has the right to take action in this

Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon you to protect the integrity of

your office and your Chair to clarify that for all of us in the House, to

clarify it for the public generally, and to clarify it most certainly for the

Premier of the Province who thinks he has greater jurisdiction, abilities and

responsibilities inside this Legislature than the law of the land gives him.

Nobody, Mr. Speaker, is above the law in this Legislature. We are elected as

equal.

Continuing on with the Premier's words, "...for the safety of people

in the galleries, the fishermen and other people in the galleries who may be

here as observers. This place..." - he was referring to this Legislature -

"... has to be secure and has to be protected....." That is what I am

doing - "...and that is what this is all about."

Mr. Speaker, if you had made that speech I would fully concur, absolutely

concur, but the Premier has no more right to make that speech than I do. The

Premier has no more right to make that speech than the Minister of Education

does. The Premier has no more right to make that speech than the Member for

Windsor-Springdale. The Premier has no more right to make that speech than a

person in the gallery.

It needs to be pointed out crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, that is a clear point

of privilege when one person walks into this Legislature and tries to take the

law into their own hands, even when and where they have absolutely no

jurisdiction. Every reference, I am sure, that you will find for every

Parliament in the free world will describe it exactly as you know that it should

be in this House.

Mr. Speaker, he says it one more time on the next page, and I know that the

Government House Leader is following it, "My job, as Premier, is to protect

the people of this Province...." - true, I do not disagree. He goes on,

"...the people in this building..." - I do not disagree, the rest of

the building, and then he says, "...and the people in this House..." -

dead wrong. Dead wrong, Mr. Speaker.

If he wants your job, I suggest he resign as Premier and run for Speaker. I

am not sure he would get my vote. I would much rather have you as the Speaker

than the Premier of the day who thinks he has power and jurisdiction far beyond

what even the high office that he holds actually bestows upon him.

I think I have made the point adequately clear, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it

is incumbent, in terms of protecting the integrity of this House, protecting the

integrity of your office, and protecting the integrity of this Parliament, that

it be made crystal clear that our Premier is dead wrong in these assumptions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to add a few comments to those of the Leader of the Official

Opposition regarding the point made. I wasn't in the House when the statement

was made by the Premier, I was in Labrador on other matters, but I do want to

say, quite seriously and sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that the importance of the role

and right of the Speaker in terms of controlling the precincts of this House and

the rights and privileges of members is paramount to that of the government.

This is something that was of considerable significance and concern about this

time last year, when there was a public sector strike in progress, and even

access to this building was being denied to members of this House by virtue of

the control over the entrance door by the Department of Public Works and whoever

was taking instructions from them.

There was considerable concern raised, and I know shared by the Speaker once

the matter was brought to his attention, that we had a significant problem in

this House in terms of the Speaker's Office and the Sergeant-at-Arms having

control over access to the House. I believe even court authorities were given to

distinguish where the House began, for the purposes of an injunction. The

matter, in fact, came before the courts for discussion as to what exactly was

the precincts of this House and to what extend could access be controlled by the

Legislature.

I think it is a very important point. It is not just a matter of debate from

a partisan point of view. This is, I would submit, Your Honour, a significant

constitutional issue. We do have a situation in this country where there is a

separation of powers among the government, the executive branch, the legislative

branch where we are sitting, and the judiciary. It is the obligation, I would

submit, of you as Speaker, to ensure, along with the support of members of the

House, that separation takes place.

The Office of the Speaker is one that goes a very long way back into

Parliament. In fact, traditionally the Speaker is dragged, reluctantly

supposedly, to the Chair. All of these ceremonies have a point, and the point of

dragging the Speaker reluctantly to the Chair was from the olden days of

parliamentary government. There was a significant battle many times between the

Parliament and the Crown, or the King or the Queen, whoever it happened to be,

and the Speaker's safety could potentially be in danger because the Speaker

had to rule against the King in return for protecting the privileges of

Parliament against the Crown.

This is an example where you are the officer of this Parliament that protects

and is supposed to and is elected to be in charge of making the rules here, not

anyone else. I will quote the authority that we have referred to many times in

the House, that of Marleau and Montpetit, page 262, where it says, "As the

arbiter of House proceedings, the Speaker's duty is to preserve order and

decorum in the House and to decide any matters of procedure that may

arise." And Standing Orders are the guide. There is, as we know, no appeal

from the Speaker when it comes to these types of rulings.

When the Speaker is elected, one of the traditions is that the Speaker

claims, from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in our case, the rights and

privileges of Parliament and is sworn to uphold those. "As regards

security..." - again, Marleau and Montpetit, page 254 - "...the

Sergeant-at-Arms..."- and this is quite interesting - "...the

Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for the protection and security of Members,

employees, visitors and property within the parliamentary precincts." This

is interesting, "This includes personal security for the Prime

Minister..." - and by analogy, the Premier here -"...in the precinct

of Parliament, and maintaining order in the Chamber and all the parliamentary

buildings."

The Sergeant-at-Arms, of course, we know has ceremonial duties with respect

to the Mace and assist the Clerk and all of that. We see these ceremonial

functions all the time but it is the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms that is

responsible for maintaining order and protection and security as an officer

reporting to you as Speaker. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are designed to

ensure that it is the Parliament that controls its own proceedings and the

Speaker's obligation as guardian of those rights and privileges is the office

to whom we look to see these protections taking place.

Again, the overall authority of the Speaker is set forth in Marleau and

Montpetit on page 248. "Elected by the Members of the House, the Speaker

holds a position of authority and represents the Commons in all its powers,

proceedings and dignity. The Speaker is guardian of the rights and privileges of

the House, and spokesperson for the House in its relations with the

Senate..." - they are talking here about the House of Commons in Ottawa -

"...the Sovereign..." - in other words, the Lieutenant-Governor, the

King - "...and other authorities outside Parliament..." - and that

includes the government - "...when in the Chair, he or she is responsible

for regulating debate and preserving order in accordance with the rules of the

House."

So, it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is the role of the Speaker and

not the role of the Premier. As I say, I was not present when the statements

were made and I recognize the quotations made from the Leader of the Opposition.

They certainly appear to make it clear that the Premier has, at least, advised

this House that he wishes to take over that responsibility. I would have to,

with great respect, disagree with him on that and ask Your Honour to assure this

House in your ruling, whenever you are able to make it, that it is your

authority as Speaker, with the Sergeant-at-Arms's authority, in terms of

preserving security in this House and access to this House. This is something

that there may be a point of contention, I do not think that the government can

control access to this House by controlling access to this building. That has to

be something that the House has to make rules concerning.

I would again submit, Your Honour, that these are the kinds of rules that

ought not to be made, necessarily, to try and deal with specific instances or

complaints or reaction to specific things, except with some deliberation and

perhaps with a committee of this House or consultation with members in terms of

what rules are deemed to be appropriate in terms of protecting the public,

protecting the institution of the House and ensuring that it is the House that

has control over this. Because the Premier makes some statement, based on

reports that he has received, does not mean that the rules have to be made here

very quickly to conform to his statements, and I say that with the greatest of

respect because the Premier is certainly entitled to his view as to what are

appropriate rules and proper rules. I know there have been debates in public

about this, but my point is not about that. My point is about ensuring that the

rules are, indeed, made by this House and not by the government and that it is

an important constitutional point that we all expect to last, not for this

session of the House, but for the life of this Parliament and parliaments to

follow. It is for that reason that I think the point raised by the Leader of the

Opposition is a significant one, and deserving of consideration, quite apart of

what the rules ought to be, because that is something that - they can vary from

time to time, and it may be that other Parliaments should be looked at, to

determine what rules they have and what ones we should have, and all of that

process has to take place, but it should take place in the confines of this

House of Assembly with its procedures, its committees and its traditions, and

not by the Minister of Justice or the officials of the Justice Department or

police officers or the Chief of Police or whoever is advising the Premier as to

what bottle caps are being found or what empty bottles are being found in

various places. That is a matter that the government certainly has a right to

look into and investigate; but, in terms of the rules of this House, this is

something that should take place internally.

I would ask Your Honour, in consideration of that, to take the opportunity to

make it extremely clear to the public and to all concerned that, at the end of

the day, while members opposite and the government, as Executive Branch, may

have an interest and a say in many of these things, that it is the House of

Assembly that ultimately decides its own procedures, with Your Honour as the

guardian of those privileges of independence, of separate meetings whenever the

House determines to meet, and under the rules and procedures that we have laid

down with your guidance and instruction.

I know we have had significant problems in this House, but when one looks to

the precedents and the rules, there are procedures for dealing with that, and

they are internal procedures within the controlled authority of your office, as

Speaker, with the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to call on whatever assistance

is deemed necessary, but through your office and not through the Premier's

office, and not through the office of the Minister of Justice, or any other

office of this government.

I know that Your Honour was talking about, in your earlier ruling, a draft

agreement about joint control over certain aspects. I think we would be far

better served by having a separate entrance to this House of Assembly, with

means for visitors to get access to the galleries under the rules and control of

the House. The sooner we get to that, the sooner we will avoid the kind of

issues that have been raised in this session of the House and this time last

year about similar issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

First of all, just a few opening comments to put things in context.

Parliamentary privilege is extended to members in their duties as members, not

in their duties as Leader of the Opposition, or in my role as Government House

Leader and Minister of Natural Resources. Fundamentally, it is about what

members inherently - what their inherent rights are, as members.

Parliamentary privilege, in the true sense, if a breach of privilege occurs,

the Speaker's role is to decide that, yes, a breach has occurred. If the

Speaker decides such, then the matter if put before the House, the forty-eight

members, to decide. If a member has breached the privileges of the House, then

it is up to the House to decide what the punishment is, not up to the Speaker. I

want to be clear on all of that.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, I sat down and listened

to everybody in the context of a serious question being put before the House.

This is not comedy hour. There is a serious question being put before the House

and I would like the opportunity, I say to the Member for Bellevue, to respond,

as I listened to everybody else. That is all I am looking for, just a common

courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, it also says that in order for a breach of privilege to be

established, and this comes from Joseph Maingot - and everybody has copies; I

know the Opposition House Leader does - who is the authority on parliamentary

privilege in the country - he says, in order for privilege to be established,

that there has been a breach, there must be some act that improperly interferes

with the member's rights, such as his or her freedom of speech, freedom from

civil arrest, the interference - this is an important point - however, must not

only obstruct a member in his or her capacity as a member; it must obstruct or

allege to obstruct the member in his or her parliamentary work.

It is my view that no obstruction has occurred; because, if it did, what has

been absent from the two points made by the Leader of the Opposition, and from

the Leader of the New Democratic Party, is the ability to point to a single act

where government has interfered with your authority. We have not. In no way,

shape or form, has government ever interfered with the authority of the Speaker.

I have been in this House twelve years, as an elected member, and there are

always times, or there have been times, where there have been difficult public

issues, whether it be the issue facing the fishery today, and government's

view on raw material shares, whether it was a public service strike, a nurses'

strike, and I believe members opposite would recall another difficult public

issue when there was an attempt to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

During those difficult public issues, where there are strong opinions,

fundamental disagreements, where people have an interest to come to the gallery

and partake in what is happening, situations that have occurred in the past ten

or eleven days here have occurred before. I want to point that out; but, in no

time, in my experience in the House, have I ever known government to interfere,

whether it be the former government or this government, because when it comes to

the administration of the government, and the agenda for the government, that is

my responsibility as Government House Leader.

I can say unequivocally to anybody who wishes to listen and hear the words,

and take them for what they, which is the absolute fact and truth of the matter,

is that in no way, shape or form, has this government or myself, on behalf of

the government, in my capacity as Government House Leader, ever gone into your

office - and you can verify this for yourself, Mr. Speaker, and for all members

- to suggest that a course of action should be taken.

I also want to remind the members opposite - and the Speaker will rule in due

course - there is no question, the supreme authority in the precincts of the

House of Assembly, and in every Legislature across this country, and in every

Legislature that operates in a free and open and democratic society, the supreme

authority is the Speaker. That is why, when the Speaker makes a ruling, the only

way we can challenge his ruling is if we put it by motion, what they call a

substantive motion to the House. Otherwise, his rulings are not to be debated.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave with this, a final point. I do not know if anybody

heard your opening statement or not, but you said, yourself, in your opening

statement, that with respect to the security measures within the House, within

the precincts of the House that you have undertaken, that you undertook them.

Nobody interfered with you in doing that.

So, I submit, based upon your own comments, government has not interfered in

any way, shape or form, with the administration of your authority in the

protection of members as we exist as elected members, not in any other roles

that we have here, that there is no breach of privilege.

As always, we will leave it to your discretion to advise us and rule upon it

and live by your ruling.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a comment, first of all, towards your opening statement, your

commentary. I appreciate the information that you have given to us. I think if

this discussion today has done anything, not only for some members in the House

who probably did not understand the distinction but certainly for the people in

the public, the distinction between what happens in the House of Assembly versus

what happens in the Confederation Building, your comments in particular about

shared jurisdiction, I think it is certainly very educational, if nothing, for

the people of this Province to understand that there is a distinction.

Some of the clips yesterday, for example, would suggest that I was some kind

of lawless radical because I did not want to comply with the law. Nothing could

be further from the truth, as I have explained. When it comes to entering the

building and putting your card through the scanner, we have all done that for

several years and should continue to do that. That is not an issue. Government,

like anyone else, has a right to protect and set certain measures of security

for the building. My concern, as an elected MHA, has to do with what happens

when I come in here, into this House of Assembly.

I appreciate in particular the comments about the consultation. I submit,

with respect, that we probably got to this point today because we probably did

not have enough consultation. If there are going to be security measures

implemented, regardless of whether they are by the Chair or whether they are by

the government, as a common courtesy to anyone who might become subject to those

measures, there ought to be some information given to people, rather than

hearing it word of mouth from people, without any publications being set out,

without any notices being given.

So, I am pleased to see that there is now going to be a process established

whereby there will be some consultation, and I would certainly recommend to the

Speaker that it include members of this House. We have Standing Committees that

consider these things and obviously you have to have discussions between the IEC

and the Works Department who deal with the protection and security of the

building, but certainly the people who live and work in this Chamber ought to

have some input into those consultations as well.

I am very pleased, as well, to hear that there are going to be exemptions

considered by the Chair. You made reference to people who visit the Chambers

with members and so on and you know in advance that these people are coming,

whether they be school-age children or seniors or veterans or whatever, and I am

pretty certain that you will include in those exemptions MHAs themselves when it

comes to what you have to do in security provisions about getting into the

confines of this House.

I come back again in comment to the Government House Leader's comment, no

one is suggesting here that the Government House Leader had anything to do with

trying to influence the security provisions. The comments here are coming about

because we had, in this Chamber, utterances from the Premier that has caused the

problems. The obstruction - you talk about obstructing members' rights. The

problem comes about when the Premier of the Province thinks he is in that chair

you are in. That is what causes the first obstruction and that is what we are

looking to you for, for a clarification. Once you define and let everybody in

this Province know, and in particular everybody in this Chamber know, that it is

you and you alone who make the rules about how we conduct ourselves in here and

not the Premier. Once that distinction is made known to him, like an ordinary

member of this House, that is when we are on the right road, I would suggest, to

doing things properly.

Thank you.

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

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

Let me be clear. As Government House Leader, when I say that the Government

has not interfered in any way, shape or form or obstructed members' rights, I

am not speaking for myself as a member, I am speaking on behalf of the

government, which includes the Premier. The Premier has never interfered or

obstructed in any way with the corporate rights and privileges of this House. If

there is any example where such an obstruction has occurred, I suspect we would

be debating it long before now.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point, but that is the

whole point of the point of privilege here. The Leader of the Opposition has

read for you, let the words speak for themselves as to what the Premier did or

did not do here. We do not need the Government House Leader telling you what the

Premier did not say. The Leader of the Opposition read for you, as part of today's

transcript, what the Premier of this Province said about security in this House.

That should speak for itself. We do not need someone else saying he speaks for

the Premier. The Premier spoke for himself and that is black on white in this

transcript.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the point was made and ought to be considered is that the government,

as led by the Premier, has certain control over the building that we are in. I

think the suggestion has been made that by issuing instructions to security

personnel as to what method of identification is required to enter this

building, the government is thereby controlling who may or may not enter this

House on any particular occasion. I think that, at that point, it becomes a

direct interference with the House's control over its own security and

procedures and all of that. I think that is the physical point of interference.

The intention, I suppose, was expressed by the Premier in saying it is my duty

to do this and that, and I think that is the - obviously, you are reaching a

ruling on that but there does come a point of interference once the rules have

been set by someone, other than this House, as to who can get in this building.

When we had that experience last year, members of this House could not get

into this House. So, we have to look to you, as Speaker, and some committee

perhaps of this House, to advise on this. I mean, different Houses have

different traditions, and the Opposition House Leader made mention of access of

members to the proceedings. We all have picture ID cards that were presented a

few years ago and, I think, we were told that we actually had to wear them. No

one wears them, as you may know, or very few wear them, and I think that is

perhaps appropriate. When you are a Member of the House of Commons, for example,

you have a pin that is issued to you, and to you alone, and that allows you

access to the precincts of the House as a member. So, every Parliament has

different traditions about that. I am glad that Your Honour is looking at those

and seeing that members can escort people to the gallery, for example, or the

members' gallery. There may be different rules for different aspects of it,

but regardless of what the rules are, they are rules that we believe must be in

the control of this House.

So, if the government, whether it is the Premier's Office or the Minister

of Transportation and Works, or whoever is in charge of the building, telling

security personnel, who are not security personnel of this House, that only

certain people who produce the right documentation can get into this building,

they are therefore controlling who can get into this House. The point is, that

control should not be in the hands of the government but should be in the hands

of the House. So, we have to overcome that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wish to thank all hon. members on all sides of the House for their

presentations. This topic is of particular interest to me. The parliamentary

precincts are, of course, the responsibility of the Speaker, and if there is one

thing that I have tried to promote since I have assumed this Chair it is a

greater definition of what the distinction is between the government and the

House of Assembly, between the parliamentary precincts and the rest of the

administrative functions of the government, between the legislative on the one

hand and the executive on the other.

I welcome all members to join me in my chambers any time to discuss these

matters. I have had discussions in the last several days with members on all

sides of the House. However, I want to make it quite clear, that there has been

no attempt by any member in this House to unduly influence the Speaker. There

have been shared views. That is expected. They are done in the Speaker's

Office and they are done in privacy. I want to make it quite clear, this Speaker

is very independent, has always had that position in his public life, and will

continue to have that position. If any attempts were made, it would be of great

concern to the Speaker, and the Speaker would have to, at some point or another,

communicate that interference to the House itself.

I want to assure all hon. members I will take the matters they have raised

very seriously, I will review the transcripts, together with the Hansard, and I

will come back in the next session of the House with a commentary on these

matters. Please be assured, that while I have consultations with members on all

sides, I weigh them and I try to, as best I can, be impartial, be fair and be

absolutely independent.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I gave notice yesterday, at the end of the session, that unless there

was a satisfactory withdrawal of comments made that were, in fact, untrue and

infactual by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and Member for St. George's-Stephenville

East, that unless she again made, by the rules of the House, a clear,

unequivocal withdrawal of an absolutely false statement that she made, that I

would raise a point of privilege today. Mr. Speaker, because that didn't

occur, I would like to raise a point of privilege, and the Government House

Leader can follow this on pages 631, 639 and 640.

Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, in

answering a question with respect to the Status of Women role in dealing with

health issues, said, "Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about saving your

political hide in the Stephenville area." These are her words. "When

the Leader of the Opposition came over, during the election in 2003, and did an

official opening of the new Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, when there were no

patients and no staff in that hospital, it was nothing but a media ploy to do an

official opening. They were in such a hurry to do the opening, they even spelled

officially wrong on the sign and did the offical' opening." - and all

their members laughed in great glee.

Mr. Speaker, on page 639, I stood on a point of order and said, "That

did not occur. I was not in Stephenville for the opening of a hospital. I would

ask her, on the basis of the fact that she has made a false statement in this

House, if she would now stand, do the honourable thing, and admit that she has

told something that was not the truth and withdraw the statement." Again,

the point of privilege being, Mr. Speaker, we cannot operate here if we have to

accept the statements as being factual, and then completely false statements are

going to be made and not clearly withdrawn; then we will never be able to

function in this Legislature.

Later in the session, the same member, the minister, stood and said: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to make a point that when the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital

was opened in October, 2003, it was the former Minister of Health, Gerald Smith,

who did the official opening, and I acknowledge that.

She is acknowledging, Mr. Speaker, that she made a statement that was false.

Mr. Speaker, she did not withdraw the statement under the normal rules of his

House. You have been asked to rule with respect to the Premier, who has not

withdrawn, and the precedent in this House - and I say again, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to page 1776, the Chair rules that the withdrawal has to be totally and

absolutely unequivocal. With respect to the statement yesterday, the minister

made a different statement, never did withdraw the statement that is on page

Mr. Speaker, for the record of this House to be accurate and factual we need

to have the withdrawal enforced so that the record will show, when somebody

reads these documents in two or three or four or ten years' time, that the

statement that was made was, in fact, false. Maybe it is because she did not

have the right information. I am not suggesting it was said deliberately, but

there was a false statement. There has been no withdrawal. There has been a

contradictory statement made, but if someone were to read this now they would

read on one page a statement saying the former Premier, the Leader of the

Opposition, opened the hospital, and a few pages later it says: I want to make a

point that when the hospital was opened it was the former Minister of Health,

Gerald Smith - but there is no withdrawal and retraction or acknowledgement that

the first statement was absolutely false, untrue, and that the event which she

described yesterday never occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I will not belabour it but it is important to say this: We

cannot do our jobs in here with integrity, and function properly as members, if

we are not going to follow the same rules consistently. Your Chair, and those

who have presided in it before you, have always ruled that the withdrawal has to

be totally unequivocal. I have been the result and, I suppose, I have been

subject to that ruling several times myself when I got up and tried to withdraw

a statement, put some other words around it, and Your Honour would say: No,

never mind the other words, just get up and say: I withdraw.

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

Last year, Mr. Speaker -

MR. E. BYRNE: If it is unparliamentary.

MR. GRIMES: I would suggest to the Government House Leader - he said: If

it is unparliamentary. I would certainly suggest to the Government House Leader

that a statement that is absolutely untrue, certainly he would agree that is

sort of unparliamentary, especially if I am not allowed to use a word like a

lie. I am not allowed to say the person is a liar, because that is

unparliamentary. He would agree that if the statement is absolutely false then

the statement, by its very nature, must be unparliamentary.

Last year, Mr. Speaker - and I will finish with this. I do not think we need

to go through the circumstance last year during a public service strike where

the Minister of Finance, old conflict of interest himself, suggested falsely in

this House that I was involved in secret meetings with Mr. Puddister, and it

took him four different days in this House before he finally stood up and

acknowledged that was not true and he did the honourable thing and withdrew.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the withdrawal occur, or that some other

procedure that you would invoke would make sure that the proper rules are

followed.

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

When we make points in this House, the Speaker has always had the position,

and it is founded in Beauchesne and it is founded in Marleau and Montpetit, that

when members are asked to withdraw their statements they should do so quickly,

without commentary and without explanation. That has been the practice, and I do

believe that has generally been the precedence of this House. I ask all hon.

members, when that occurs, that we should follow the procedures and the

practices. I ask all hon. members, in that regard, to do that in the future.

As to what occurred in the matter that is being discussed now between the two

members, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment, the Speaker has difficulty ruling on this matter because

the matter occurred outside the House and therefore it does not constitute, in

the regular sense of the word, a breach of their privileges. Unless the members

have disagreements that they can rationalize, the Speaker has difficulty ruling.

I would ask the two honourable members if they could resolve their

differences, and if there is clarification to be made I would invite the hon.

the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to do so now.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, to clarify the issue, yesterday I did indicate in

Question Period that the Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as the former

Premier, attended the staged opening of the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in

Stephenville during the election of 2003, but I will clarify the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker invited the hon. the minister to make a short commentary, and I

would ask her to do that. At the end of it, I would ask her if she would do the

correct thing and set the record straight.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I continue - and I would like to clarify this -

the hon. member opposite was not at this, I guess, what they call the official

opening of the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, but indeed it was the former

Minister of Health and Community Services, Gerald Smith, in one of his last days

in that capacity, who did the staged opening.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In fairness to all members, I would ask the hon. the minister if she would

stand, in that case, and simply use the words that you withdraw the statement

that you made yesterday.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the statement, in relation to this

matter, that was made yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Under our routine procedures we now move to Statements by

Members, and today we have statements as follows: The hon. the Member for the

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

Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; the hon.

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

the District of Terra Nova; and the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador

West.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me the greatest of pleasure to rise in this hon. House today and

recognize an outstanding citizen in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, Artie Daye has always been, and continues to be, an active

member of the community. For twenty-five years he has been a member of the

Kiwanis Club. He worked diligently at the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal.

During the Badger flood, he was front and center offering his assistance in any

way possible, and through the Red Cross, assists in any such campaigns.

Along with all of these things, Artie is also an active member of the Lions

Club. At Christmastime, residents of Grand Falls-Windsor know of his work with

the Christmas raffles. The people of the town know that when someone is needed

as a volunteer, Artie is the first to be there.

Mr. Speaker, Artie Daye is a person deserving of honourable mention, and in

this regard, he has been named Grand Falls-Windsor Citizen of the Year. I would

ask all members of this House to join with me in passing along our sincerest

congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour five baseball greats from my hometown of Grand

Falls-Windsor who have recently been inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador

Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Darryl Snow, Rick Lane, Barry Reid, Bruce Andrews and Reg

Edwards - all of whom I know personally, I have played with and coached four of

them, and know the other one very well - were all honoured this past Thursday

night for their outstanding baseball achievements in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, it was a night of memories and celebration and a way to

recognize some of the finest baseball players Grand Falls-Windsor has ever seen.

The inductees entertained and informed an audience of approximately 100 people,

about their experiences playing ball in Grand Falls-Windsor, as well as

representing the Province in countless national competitions.

The list of achievements for these great athletes is long. It includes

batting titles, six straight Senior B Provincial Championships, and then

coaching a lot of up and comers, as they all did. For four of the group, beating

the Corner Brook Barons to win the Provincial A crown in 1986 seems to be their

baseball highlight, because it is a team sport after all. However, the career

highlight for Reg Edwards, a little older, was beating St. John's in 1957 to

take home the McCormack trophy, the first time Grand Falls ever won the Senior A

Provincial Baseball Championship.

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

congratulating five of Grand Falls-Windsor's finest baseball players, and

indeed athletes, on their recent inductions into the Newfoundland and Labrador

Baseball Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak today and report

on a meeting I participated in yesterday afternoon with the Premier, Minister

Dunderdale, Minister Taylor, the MHA for Grand Bank, MHA Foote, government

officials, and a representative group from Fortune and surrounding areas.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to participate in this meeting as an individual

from the Burin Peninsula. As people have heard me say time and time again, if we

are to survive as a region we have to think and act collectively, for in the

face of the many challenges that confront us, it is the only way we can survive

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think this was a positive move by government and the

Committee, in an effort to assist those affected, and we look forward to some

positive moves on behalf of the people of Fortune and therefore the people of

the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker had difficulty hearing all of the statement just

read by the member. I would ask members to read carefully the instructions when

it comes to members statements, that they should not contain matters of

political matters. They should be exempted. Members statements are designed to

offer congratulations to members' constituents, to welcome people who might be

visiting from their district, and other anniversaries or the passing of certain

people within the community and that kind of thing.

I also remind all hon. members, when they are addressing other members of the

House please use the name of their district or their titles, not their regular

surnames or that kind of thing.

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the hard work done by the Trinity Conception

Placentia Health Foundation, Chaired by Mr. Don Regular, and the voluntary

dialysis committee headed by Ms Joan Gosse.

It is through the hard work and perseverance of volunteers who lobbied and

raised money throughout the region that the dialysis unit opened last week at

the Carbonear General Hospital.

By this summer, it is expected that this unit will improve the lives of

twenty dialysis patients in the Conception Bay North Region. This is a great

accomplishment for which we all should be proud. The organization successfully

fund-raised the necessary money to allow this project to become a reality.

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

congratulating Joan Gosse of the dialysis committee, Mr. Don Regular, Chair of

the Trinity-Conception-Placentia Health Foundation, and all the volunteers who

helped make this new dialysis unit possible in Conception Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Newfoundlander and

Labradorian, Mr. Wilfred Collins of Hare Bay, who passed away on April 12, 2005.

Uncle Wilf, as he was known, was born on October 1, 1912, to Jane and Samuel

Collins. He married Estella Minnie Winsor on July 16, 1934, and they raised five

boys and three girls. He lived in Hare Bay for most of his life, except for a

short stay at Oram's Birchview Manor in Glovertown.

Uncle Wilf began his career working with his father in Three Brooks, Lockyer's

Bay, and had contracts for wood cutting and logging for export. After this time,

he worked at Indian Bay, wood cutting for Bowaters. Next, he became employed

with his father at Terra Nova and Gambo contracting for the A.N.D. Company. He

also worked with Abitibi Price as a logging camp Second Hand and a Foreman.

Later in his life, he took on the position of Town Manager for the Town of Hare

Bay for seven years.

Uncle Wilf served his community well. He was a town councillor. For

twenty-seven years he was Secretary of the Library Board, a school board member

for a number of years, as well as Secretary of the Salvation Army Men's

Fellowship. He was Justice of the Peace for over twenty years until he retired

at age ninety from that position. He was also given the Queen's Silver Jubilee

Medal.

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

sympathy to the Collins family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Wabush Volunteer Fire Department.

Earlier this month, they won the 2004-2005 Atlantic Fire Department of the

Year Award as selected by Muscular Dystrophy, beating out other departments from

Atlantic Canada who have a much larger base.

The selection is based not only on firefighting skill and ability, but also

on fundraising and other community activities. The Wabush Fire Department is a

very well-trained professional group, and during the course of any year they

hold walk-a-thons, food drives, car washes, and provide support to organizations

when they have parades.

Mr. Speaker, by capturing the Atlantic Canada Award, they qualify to

represent the region against the winners in each of the country's other

regions.

Mayor Jim Farrell and the Council of Wabush, Chief Ron Matthews, Fire Chief,

is very proud of his twenty-five firefighters for the many unselfish hours that

they give. As the Chief says, "We don't volunteer for recognition or

honor, but it's a nice feeling when you do get recognized."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Chief Matthews

and the Wabush Firefighters, and wish them well in the national competitions

where I am sure they will make us all proud.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise all hon. Members of the House of Assembly and

the people of the Province that tomorrow, Friday, April 22, is Earth Day. This

marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of Earth Day, which is celebrated worldwide

as a time to reflect on the importance of preserving and protecting our

environment and natural heritage.

Our planet is a precious and fragile place, and Earth Day is a reminder of

the essential need for each and every one of us to be responsible stewards of

the environment at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, we all must work together to do our part to help ensure a

healthy and clean environment for ourselves, our children and grandchildren.

Newfoundland and Labrador is fortunate to have so many people all over the

Province who are showing their commitment to the environment through a number of

activities, such as recycling, cleaning up beaches, planting trees and spreading

the environmental message in our school classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, government has undertaken many initiatives to help protect our

environment, from introducing new Air Pollution Control Regulations, to

organizing and announcing a number of fibre waste diversion and recycling

programs, to signing wetlands stewardship agreements with various

municipalities.

One of the most challenging environmental issues we are facing today, Mr.

Speaker, is climate change, and this government is committed to doing its part

to address climate change, which was demonstrated in Budget 2005 with the

provision of $300,000 for climate change initiatives.

We have also developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal

government on climate change initiatives, and we anticipate signing this MOU

before the end of this month. As well, we have drafted our own climate change

action plan that will also be released very soon.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the sustainable use of our natural environment and

resources is also key to protecting our environment for future generations. To

this end, as committed in our Blueprint, government has also commenced work on

establishing a Sustainable Development Act for the Province.

All of these actions, Mr. Speaker, show very clearly that this government is

very serious about the environment and we will continue to take action, whether

it is Earth Day or any other day throughout the year, to ensure its protection

and conservation.

In recognition of Earth Day, I encourage everybody in the Province to make

that extra effort to do something positive for the environment. Our actions,

whether they are big or small, do make a difference. Let's use Earth Day to

renew our commitment to the environment, as a healthy environment means healthy

people, vibrant communities, and a strong and more productive Province for

future generations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I too would join with the minister and

congratulate all the people and the volunteers involved around Newfoundland and

Labrador, tomorrow being Earth Day and all the tremendous work that is being

done around this Province. It is too bad we don't have some leadership from

the minister in terms of some of the initiatives that should be taken in this

Province today. In observance of Earth Day, I would anticipate that he would

have been up making some announcements about the waste management strategy and

some money to implement that particular plan.

Yesterday, in this House, I indicated that we have a great thing happening on

the oil rigs off our coast in terms of the independent monitors with the

tremendous major spills that have occurred on our coast that are causing severe

damage to our marine life.

Minister, when are you going to join everybody else in Newfoundland and

Labrador and have some concern for our environment?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to acknowledge Earth Day tomorrow as an important opportunity to

consider how we are treating the environment.

Mr. Speaker, in many respects, governments, including this one, are catching

up to where the public is on this issue, because I think the public is far more

interested and far more sensitive to environmental issues than governments have

been. One of the most significant polluters, for example, in our Province is our

very own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which continues to spew hundreds of

thousands of tons of pollutants into the air in the Holyrood Generating Station.

I know some steps have been taken to try to eliminate that, but we are not there

yet.

Two years ago, the Kyoto Accord on climate change was ratified by the

the government for that, and this government hasn't yet released its

procedures as to how to do that. We want to see progress, like they have

achieved in Nova Scotia, in reducing waste to landfills by 50 per cent and other

programs - if I may by leave, Mr. Speaker? I see the Speaker about to rise.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: I should adopt the procedure before I stand up, asking for

leave to continue, as I only have one-half of the last speaker's time.

Another program that I think would be very welcome in this Province, both to

the environment and to home owners and occupiers, is a significant program to

assist home owners to plan and execute energy efficiency programs in their

house. It would save money for heating, it would create many jobs and help the

environment as well, and that is a program that I would like to see this

government undertake in co-operation with other departments.

This is part of the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Environment is

there with a mandate to look after the environment, but other ministers have

control over energy, over government services, over housing, over other aspects.

They should work together and give this minister a little bit more power to

co-ordinate some of these efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in this House over the past few weeks, the

Premier has very little respect for the principles of our parliamentary

traditions. Last year, the Premier refused to appear before the Estimates

Committee for the Department of Business, and answer questions regarding the

department, even though he is supposedly the minister. A year later, Mr.

Speaker, nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed. The Premier still thinks he

is bigger than the parliamentary process and does not have to follow the rules.

I ask the Government House Leader, who said earlier today that when he speaks

for the government he speaks for all of government: Why did the Premier once

again refuse to appear before the Estimates Committee for the Department of

Business yesterday, and refuse to answer questions regarding his much talked

about but non-existent Department of Business?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This is an unusual question, in my view. Again, it is just about trying to

leave a perception about the Premier of the Province.

The fact of the matter is this: I have never seen, in my twelve years here,

and this would include the Leader of the Opposition, when he was former Premier

- ever respond to questions directly related to the operations of his office or

his responsibilities. Clyde Wells did not do it in this House. Brian Tobin did

not do it.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) Minister of Business.

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

Brian Tobin did not do it. Beaton Tulk did not do it. Roger Grimes did not do

it. Mr. Williams did not do it. As a matter of fact, when we debate Estimates in

this House, we debate the Premier's Office, for example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the former Premier, now Leader of the

Opposition: Why is he putting out a standard of this Premier that he was not

willing to live to himself?

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

concern anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women

responded to questions regarding the Hay report and the decision to remove three

recommendations from consideration for Stephenville, the district she happens to

represent.

In her response and rationale, she stated that she made the announcements

because it was a women's issue. The three issues were: obstetrics - delivering

a baby - food services, and moving a closed custody Alzheimer's unit.

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

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, my first comment is: I want to let the people of

Bay St. George know, and the people who have various forms of dementia, they are

not in a closed custody unit. They are not in custody; they are in a locked

protective unit, but they are not in custody.

Mr. Speaker, we looked at some recommendations in the Hay report. Some had

some gender analysis that needed to be done, and there were other issues there

that, quite frankly, did not make sense. In saying that, if we look at the

patterns of work, and people who do work in dietary kitchens, who work in the

kitchens, who are the staff to do that type of work, when you look at that and

do a gender analysis, most of those employees are women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

job is gone.

Mr. Speaker, if she wants to deal with legitimate women's issues for the

whole Province instead of just her own district, like she did yesterday, why

didn't she remove the same recommendations regarding obstetrics for Port aux

Basques, and obstetrics and gynecology for St. Anthony?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about women's issues throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was in August of last year that I travelled to

Coastal Labrador with one of the members opposite, and it was not a political

trip. I took time, I met with people in the women's community up there. I have

met with health care officials who offer services to women up there.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: To deal with some of the other issues, I understand that

Grenfell Regional Health Services, and the Hay report, that the board have

thrown out that report and felt that with the new configuration they need to

look at services before they make any decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to further add that the people of Port aux Basques will

not be treated any differently than the people in Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could interpret the answer so we understand it clearly, she has just

announced that the obstetrics services will stay in Port aux Basques. We

appreciate that announcement. It is the right thing to do. She has just

announced, on behalf of the government, that the Hay report in the Grenfell

region does not apply at all, is now scrapped and should be shredded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the announcement yesterday to remove the three

Hay report recommendations affecting Stephenville still has not been officially

announced by the government. There was no press release from the Acting Minister

of Health. There was no press release from the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women. There was no announcement from the Premier. There was only a

written version of a press release from two private members of the House of

Assembly for St. George's-Stephenville East and Port au Port. It did not come

from the government officially.

I ask the Acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Can he confirm that this is

the policy of his department, that these recommendations are definitely gone,

that Port aux Basques will be treated exactly the same way, and that there is no

need for the board to further consider the Hay report as it relates to the

Grenfell operations?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, regardless of how a press release is done, when I

stand on my feet in this House of Assembly and I make a statement, and it is a

public statement, and I do so in my capacity as Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women, the public of Newfoundland and Labrador can take it as a

commitment of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on my left -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the intensity that often accompanies Question Period. I

would ask all hon. members, if they have words they want to say to each other,

to be taken outside of those Chambers, not in here when Question Period is on.

It is consuming time.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a decision of this magnitude must have been discussed in

Cabinet. As a matter of fact, the member herself, in her own words yesterday,

said: The government looked at those issues and we took them off the Table. So,

I am sure that was done by the Cabinet. I am sure the acting minister, the

Minister of Finance, the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services was

there because he attends meetings even when he is in an obvious conflict of

interest. So I am sure he attended this one. Why wasn't this announced I ask,

Mr. Speaker, as a decision from the Department of Health? It is apparent that

the Minister of Fisheries had very little impact on the discussion or we would

have seen the same recommendations announced as being removed from St. Anthony.

I ask the minister: Will he confirm by presenting a Minute of Council or an

Order of Council that shows that this decision was taken by the Cabinet and that

he participated as the Health Minister?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, for some reason it seems that the member opposite

has a problem with the fact that we have decided that some of the

recommendations in the Hay report, frankly, do not make sense and do not

necessarily meet the needs of women on the West Coast of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable analysis done on this issue. I have

attended many consultations, meetings. I have done analysis. I have consulted

within government and yesterday, in my capacity as Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women, I spoke to these issues and I make no apologies for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no difficulty with the decision. As a matter of fact, we are pleased.

What we have difficulty with, I say to members opposite, is the rationale -

which does not make any sense - and the inconsistency, but I am glad today to

see that obstetrics are staying in Port aux Basques and that there will be no

changes in St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, while the people of Stephenville - and I am glad the minister

referenced this before. While the people of Stephenville are relieved that these

recommendations were taken off the table, they still have concerns, which they

have expressed publicly and will express tonight, that no official announcement

has been made. I ask the minister, I ask the Acting Minister of Health, will he

provide a written commitment, or better still - actually I should ask it to the

Premier because when the Minister of Fisheries gave a written commitment about

consultation in the crab sector, the Premier said: They did not get it from me.

I ask the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Will he, on behalf of the government, provide in writing a

statement to the people in Stephenville that this is a government decision and

that it will not change for sure? Because that might not even be any good. Ask

the Metis about letters from the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an official announcement,

that the services of obstetrics and surgical services will remain at the Sir

Thomas Roddick Hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the protective care unit will remain at the Bay

St. George Long Term Care Centre. The food services will remain in that centre

and that the obstetrical and surgical services, at their current levels in Port

aux Basques, will also remain. Official statement!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members to my right to permit the Leader of the Opposition to

pose his question.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move on to some questions about the crab fishery, and thank

the minister and ask her though, later maybe, whether she would like to tell us

what Cabinet meeting that decision about Port aux Basques was made or are you

flying by the seat of your pants? Show us the minutes because nobody here

believes you, I can tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition who was posing a question,

I believe, to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I asked yesterday if the Premier had any concerns about his

Minister of Finance and that, in fact, he was in conflict of interest since he

learned that two of the Finance Minister's brothers are on the Board of

Directors of the Association of Seafood Producers, an organization that has

lobbied hard for these changes, and, actually, I understand made a presentation

to the Cabinet with respect to this. We did not receive an answer yesterday but,

instead, we were subjected to a non-related tirade.

I ask the Minister of Finance: In light of this new information for the

public, that two of his brothers are right on the board itself, does he still

deny being in a potential conflict of interest and does he still feel that he

should participate in all future discussions regarding this very sensitive and

important issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, now this is the same gentleman that just made the big soliloquy

or statement about everyone must tell the truth in this House of Assembly. Now,

let me ask him to produce who made such a presentation to Cabinet because I can

tell him, no such presentation was ever made. So, when you get to your feet

again you can stand and withdraw that and apologize to the Minister of Fisheries

and Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The entire week the Leader of the Opposition, beginning

last week and all of this week, has been on an intentional smear campaign

against a member in this House, when he knows full well that the rules that all

Cabinet Ministers operate under, the standards to which we are held, the

guidelines by which we govern ourselves with respect to any other outside

interests are the very same standards, guidelines, that he and his former

Cabinet were held to. We have not diminished. We have not taken away from that,

and let me ask the Leader of the Opposition, in all honesty, Mr. Speaker, let me

ask him this. If he is such a person who has so high a regard for the truth, why

does not he stand and apologize for the intentional smear campaign on a Member

of this House of Assembly? Because that is all that is going on, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the Government House Leader, if he wants to come back to

this role of asking questions, come on over anytime you want. We ask the

questions, you people give the answers.

Mr. Speaker, the question was quite simple. We asked about a conflict of

interest and does the minister still plan to sit? He refuses to answer.

Mr. Speaker, another question. There has been much talk in this House by the

Premier regarding a lawsuit he plans to launch against me regarding these

conflict of interest questions. Yesterday the Government House Leader, during a

heated discussion, threatened a similar lawsuit against the Member for Bellevue.

I ask the Premier: Is this a plan of this government to use this intimidation

tactic every time they get a question that they do not like?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what planet the Leader of the

Opposition is on but it is not the one that contains reality or the truth. First

of all, the Premier never did say that he was launching a lawsuit against the

Leader of the Opposition. It is factually not correct. He knows it.

With respect that I made some reference to the Member for Bellevue about a

lawsuit, Mr. Speaker, please enlighten me because no such reference was ever

made by myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

to my left for their co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he wants me to produce the documents in Hansard, like we have done today,

where the Premier talked about a lawsuit, and yesterday.... Both of you will be

in the same courtroom, he said to the Member for Bellevue.

Mr. Speaker, there are much more important points like this one. In the House

of Assembly on Tuesday, the Minister of Fisheries stated, in reference to the

production quota system, these are his words in Hansard, "...if people do

not want that, we can pull back. We can pull back and we can let the market and

we can let free enterprise drive the industry. We can pull back."

I ask the Premier, or the Government House Leader, who says he speaks for

everybody in the government: Does he agree with the Minister of Fisheries, that

free enterprise should govern the industry and that he is willing to pull back,

and are you willing to pull back as well and let this impasse end today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my comments in the House on Tuesday, I guess it was, clearly

were to point out that there are two options for government. There are two

options for the industry. There is the option of a highly regulated industry

that deals with resource sharing, that has issues of corporate concentration

dealt with, that has a very rigid Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act

that deals with issues such as regional balance and other issues of that nature

in a very regulated manner; or, Mr. Speaker, you let the market and free

enterprise determine where the fishing industry, as a whole, goes. In the past

twenty-five years we have tried to wander down the road in between, and that,

Mr. Speaker, is where we ended up today, in between, in no man's land.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to address the fundamental problems in the industry,

we can only do it one of two ways. The choice, Mr. Speaker, has to be made at

this crossroads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further, in speaking on the same day to a media scrum outside the doors of

the Legislature, the Minister of Fisheries finished the statement he made in the

House and went on to say that if fish harvesters did not want a production quota

system - I do not know why he said if, because he knows they do not - and wanted

free enterprise to govern the industry - again, these are his words quoted in The

Telegram . His words were: That was fine with me.

If it is fine with the minister responsible, I ask the Government House

Leader, who speaks for the Premier and everybody else, why isn't it fine with

him and then this could be over?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

absolutely fine with me -

[Applause from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds visitors in the gallery that they are not to participate or

to show approval or disapproval for anything that happens on the floor. You are

always welcome in this House; however, you are not to show any approval or

disapproval. I ask you for your co-operation.

The Chair does not wish to have visitors asked to leave this Chamber. It is

an important part of democracy, and you are welcome here, but you cannot

participate in what goes on.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that if why, last year in the shrimp fishery, we tried to bring

in an auction, because there is no truer form of free enterprise and

market-driven economy than an auction can drive. That, I can tell you, was not

welcomed with open arms either. Why? Because people were scared of the

implications of a free market, of free enterprise, and how it would impact on

communities, and how we could not control the impact that it might have on

plants in certain areas, harvesters in certain areas, certain communities, and

how, if you get into a market-driven economy totally, you cannot manage the

fallout at the end of the day.

That is why governments have interfered in the past. That is why raw material

sharing is being promoted now. That is why people have asked over the years for

a highly regulated fishery, and that is why we are trying to have that highly

regulated fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder why the minister just cannot stand and make a statement or an

announcement like the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women did, and take

some real leadership and bring this issue to an end.

Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Fisheries obviously does not have the

support of 75 per cent of the crab processors in the Province for the production

system, does not have the support of the majority, or anywhere close to that, of

fish harvesters, and did not consult with the union or its membership like he

promised in writing, I might add. He is not following, today, any part of the

recommendation he quotes from the Dunne report.

I ask the minister: Now that the Dunne report has no application to this at

all, when is he going to withdraw this ill-conceived plan and let the crab

fishery start?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will withdraw a plan on Raw Material Sharing, as I have said

before, when one of two things happen, when it is either demonstrated that it

doesn't work or somebody can demonstrate a suitable alternative. Thus far, Mr.

Speaker, neither one of those things has happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he had done the consultation he promised and committed to in writing, he

might have gotten the alternative long before now.

Mr. Speaker, in announcing his production quota scheme, the minister said

that fishermen shouldn't be concerned about getting a fair price for their

crab because he would force processors to open their books. He said it in his

public announcement. Last night, in the committee meeting for the Department of

Fisheries, a question as simple as how much crab a plant produced last year was

refused and denied because of so-called proprietary information.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: How does he expect anyone to believe that he

is going to force the processors to put their financial statements on the table

if he cannot and is not allowed to answer a simple question like, how much crab

did they or will they produce?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we rolled out on March 4, as it relates to disclosure of sales

invoices, our intentions to force processors, as a conditional license, to

disclose their sales invoices to an independent auditing firm contracted by the

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Mr. Speaker, that is not dissimilar to

the approach that government has taken in providing the production information

related to individual operations in this Province to an arbitrator right now to

determine production shares.

Mr. Speaker, it is proprietary information and when the Leader of the

Opposition was in government, and when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I asked for individual processing

information on plants on the Northern Peninsula and they refused to provide it

to me because it was proprietary information. We abide by that same policy.

However, Mr. Speaker, sales invoices will be forced to be disclosed by producers

to an independent auditing firm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In order to ensure that the members of the New Democratic Party have equal

opportunity, we are at the stage now where I must transfer to the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture regarding the

disastrous plan to provide plant quotas to processors.

Yesterday we saw representatives of Quinlan Brothers, one of the largest

buyers, say that they no longer needed to have a relationship with fish

harvesters whereby they supply bait, extend credit, supply fuel, because they

are going to get the quota and the raw material anyway. All of these things are

absolutely necessary for fish harvesters to operate their enterprises. Will the

minister now admit that his plan will not only shift the bargaining power in

collective bargaining to processors but also see fish harvesters thrown to the

wolves when it comes to operating their enterprises and getting the means

whereby to be able to do that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, politics in Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed an

interesting spot. When you have the Leader of the New Democratic Party in

Newfoundland and Labrador championing market forces and free enterprises

determining what happens in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, I

can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an ironic day.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would remind visitors in the gallery that the Speaker cannot tolerate

further disruptions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that we have no fisheries loan board. He knows that at

least now when - although they may be dependent upon individual processors, that

they at least have the right to go somewhere else if they do not like what they

are getting. He is taking away that right. Will he acknowledge that is one of

the big failings of this program and go back to the drawing board, sit down with

the fish harvesters, and come up with a decent plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is incorrect. There is a

Fisheries vessel Loan Guarantee Program that every individual in this Province

can avail of, every fishing enterprise in this Province can avail of if they

have the suitable finances.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I tell you, if they do not know where it is, Mr.

Speaker - and I know I am not supposed to respond to the gallery, but if they do

not know where it is, it is only to contact the Department of Innovation, Trade

and Rural Development and it is easily found out.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what. The reason why that program is not

availed of is because processors in this Province, and fishermen in this

Province working with them, have seen a vast majority of the vessels and the

licences in this Province bought up under the Administration that is sitting

across the floor here right now. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is stop

that from continuing and stop what we have now, where 50 per cent of the crab

production in this Province is controlled by four processors. That happened

under their watch, as I said yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Acting Minister of Health, concerning the provincial

drug prescription plan.

I want to ask the minister; given the two sheets I have here, which covers

every jurisdiction in this country, every other jurisdiction covers drugs from a

co-share plan, many of them with 2 per cent of income, depending on the costs -

some of them exempt, RRSPs and children's education funds, which our Province

does not. Why is it, I ask the minister, that people in our Province have to put

themselves in poverty in order to purchase drugs they need to treat serious

illnesses? Why aren't we a part of the national standard of this country? Why

should we accept less than other provinces provide for their residents?

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

Board.

About twenty seconds for a reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions he asked the last day: every province has not added aricept.

There is one which has not, it is looking at it. The expert advisory committee -

I indicated that to him before. When he reported in 2003, it was based on three

aspects. There were three aspects to it. Since that, new clinical evidence, I

indicated, has come forward. It is the AD2000 study that was published in Lancet

2004, and an epidemiological group at Memorial have confirmed, for example, one

of these drugs have indicated that it does not delay institutionalization and

there is a minimally relevant benefit arising from that particular case.

MR. SPEAKER: Time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

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

Leader.

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

I just noticed that, for the purposes of today, once we get to Orders of the

Day where we are proceeding with the Budget Debate, I believe there is something

wrong with the Order Paper today. It starts at Motion 7. There are no Motions

1-6, and the motion that we would be debating today would be Motion 1, which is

the Budgetary motion or what is commonly referred to as the Budget Debate.

I am going to have to take my leave shortly because I have an engagement to

go to. My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, will assume,

obviously, the role as Government House Leader. So, when he stands up and moves

the motion, he will be moving Motion 1, which we all acknowledge, I would think,

because of the absence on the Order Paper. I just want to ensure that is clear

because, you know, it is not clear on the Order Paper today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair apologizes for the error. I have to compliment our

staff, they rarely make errors. I think this is the second one that has been

made in the last two years. We apologize for them and we ask members for their

co-operation so we can call the appropriate motion.

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

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

behalf of the Committee.

The Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have

approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following

departments: Department of Business; Department of Environment and Conservation;

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Department of Innovation, Trade and

Rural Development; Department of Natural Resources; the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, and the Labrador affairs segment of the Department of

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take the opportunity at this time to thank the

ministers and their departmental staff, as well as the members of the committee

and the Members of the House of Assembly staff.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

As Speaker of the House of Assembly, and in compliance with the

responsibilities attached to the Speaker's office, and in compliance with the

Public Tender Act, I am submitting to the House the report of the Public Tender

Act exemptions for the month of March, 2005.

Further Tabling of Documents.

Notice of Motions.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance - the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, the City of

Mount Pearl Act, the Municipalities Act, 1999 and the St. John's Assessment

Act," Bill 15.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation,

and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation," Bill 17.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, again today, rise with a petition on behalf of the plant production

quotas, a petition that I have received from harvesters, not only in my area,

but throughout various areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making a comment that when I was on the way

back to the building today I happened to have a CD on, and they were singing

this song. It says: They are crying out for peace around the world. Why won't

they listen to the children?

I say, Mr. Speaker, the union and the harvesters of this Province are crying

out to this government. I say, why won't they listen to the harvesters, the

plant workers and the processors? Mr. Speaker, those individuals we hear from on

a daily basis throughout this Province believe that they are going to lose their

rights. They know that the quotas are in their names.

I read the other day, with great interest, from a fisherman - I think it was

on the Northern Peninsula - when he said they may still own the quotas -

[Disturbance from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, he was saying that they may - when he said they,

he was referencing the harvesters - own the quotas but the processors will own

the harvesters.

That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, because those individuals have worked

very hard to get to the point they have reached today.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to meetings that I have attended,

listening to my fellow colleagues on this side of the House when they present

petitions, and I know, I am sure, members on the other side are getting the same

feedback in their districts from their constituents as we are. Mr. Speaker, I

say to them, I plead with them to stand. I know the people out in the Province

are sending a message loud and clear, and I think we, as members in this House,

have to send a message loud and clear. I know colleagues on the other side who,

in neighbouring districts to mine, are getting the same message that I am

getting. If they are fearful of standing on their feet on that side and making

their views known, Mr. Speaker, there is a big open space over here on this

side. The rent is fairly cheap, but I say it is not as cheap as the silence that

we are hearing. I think it is unfortunate that people cannot speak themselves in

this hon. House, on behalf of the constituents they represent, to get this

message across.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Premier say the other day that the livelihood is in

turmoil, because of the situation in this industry, for a lot of people in this

Province. He said, I have a responsibility to protect the people in the House

and the Province.

I say to the Premier and to the Minister of Fisheries, they have a tremendous

responsibility to deal with the crisis in the fishing industry today and to get

back to the table. They are looking for options, and I am sure if they sat down

with the FFAW, with the harvesters, the plant workers, and all those involved in

the industry, Mr. Speaker, that they can come to some kind of a successful

conclusion to this problem. People are hurting, not only the people in the

fishing industry but other businesses in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people on the Burin

Peninsula, and the prayer of the petition says:

WHEREAS the need for a CT scanner and a dialysis unit has been clearly

identified and demonstrated on the Burin Peninsula; and

WHEREAS this need has been recognized by all residents of the Burin Peninsula

who have given generously toward the acquisition of those services; and

WHEREAS the CT scanner and dialysis unit are now considered standard service

at all regional hospitals; and

WHEREAS those services will significantly improve the delivery of quality

health care services on the Burin Peninsula;

WHEREUPON the citizens of Grand Bank and Fortune and surrounding communities

call upon the provincial government to make the provision of a CT scanner and a

dialysis unit a health care priority for the Burin Regional Hospital and

allocate funding for those services.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress strongly enough the importance of this

petition. We had hoped, of course, that the government would recognize the need

for these two services for the Burin Peninsula in their last Budget; but, of

course, they did not.

Having watched what took place in the House today, I am again calling on the

Member for Burin-Placentia West to speak to one of his colleagues, whether it is

the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, who has been popping up here

today with official announcements on behalf of the government - I can only

imagine that the Premier must be sitting and watching what happened today in the

House and just shake his head, because I have never seen government run so

haphazardly. You wonder who is going to pop up with a decision, so today I am

asking somebody over there to pop up and say: Yes, we are going to put a CT

scanner and a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.

I am going to again call upon the Member for Burin-Placentia West to exert

his influence, if he has any at all, to stand up and announce a CT scanner and a

dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula. If the Member for St. George's-Stephenville

East can do it, why can't he do it? Certainly he must have the Premier's

ear, or the ear of the Acting Minister of Health, who is also the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board; but then, of course, we do not know who

would have to approve it.

I am calling on the member again. He was eager to get up and do a member's

statement on a meeting that I convened on behalf of my constituents. I would ask

that he now stand up and announced a CT scanner and a dialysis unit for the

Burin Peninsula. I know he might find it funny, because he is laughing, but I am

not sure that he takes this seriously enough. I would like for the government to

take this seriously. This issue is of utmost importance to the people on the

Burin Peninsula. To have to travel over treacherous roads to go to Clarenville

to access a CT scanner, and then to have people have to leave their homes and

move away from the Burin Peninsula to have access to dialysis services is

totally uncalled for in this day in age. I would ask the government to really be

considerate of the needs of the people on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, the petition I have today has been signed by residents of Grand

Bank and Fortune, but I can tell you that other communities in my district and

throughout the Burin Peninsula are calling on this government to really stand

up, take notice and make the announcement, and pop up and make an announcement

about this, like they have done with others today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the three minutes allotted to present another petition

with respect to the crab harvesting issue that is before the people of the

Province today. This particular petition, again from fish harvesters and their

families from several different communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, I will

present to the Table.

Mr. Speaker, the strangest kinds of things are happening around this issue,

in this Legislature, where you have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

saying: It is okay by me, it is fine by me, I will gladly take this off the

table - but it is not off the table. Then, in the meantime, outside the House,

in other commentary, he acted very much like, I guess, some people I dealt with

- I mentioned baseball players earlier today, that we played with when we were

very young, and somebody always had the good privilege and pleasure of owning

the bat and the ball. The minister, outside the House, though unfortunately, a

couple of days ago, acted like the person who did not like the way the game was

going, and sometimes they would say: I don't like the way this game is going,

so I am going to take my bat and ball and go home.

He acted like that outside the Legislature a couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker,

when he said: If I don't get my way with respect to these crab quotas, don't

ask me to do anything else for any other fishing community, or deal with any

other fishery issue in the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is tantamount to saying,

as the minister, that I quit. If I do not get my way on this issue, I will quit.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, from what I have seen, there does not seem to

be any lack of resolve from the fish harvesters. There seems to be a weakening

of any unified front from the fish processors. The biggest one does not want

anything to do with this. The biggest processor - very telling - the biggest

processor in the whole entire Province does not want anything to do with this

new system. The harvesters do not want anything to do with this new system, and

these petitioners, Mr. Speaker, are saying: Please take it off the table. Come

back and do the consultation that you promised us in writing. The minister's

response is: Well, if I do not get my way I will quit, and don't ask me; don't

you people dare ask me to deal with any other fisheries issue.

He mentioned communities like Fortune and Harbour Breton. What is he going to

do, quit the IAS committee in Harbour Breton if these quotas do not go through?

There is no crab in Harbour Breton. Crab has nothing to do with Harbour Breton.

Crab has nothing to do with Fortune. Why would the Minister of Fisheries stand

up and say: if this quota system does not go through, don't ask me to do

anything in Harbour Breton? What kind of an approach is that? I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that it was tantamount, basically, to resigning because he said: I will

quit if I do not get my way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of crab harvesters and

plant workers in the Province who are calling upon government to take this

production quota scheme off the table and only implement it as was recommended

in the Dunne report, by Eric Dunne, if, and only when the harvesters in this

Province and the FFAW agree to implement them.

Mr. Speaker, since this episode concerning production quotas has been put on

the table by the minister some three or four weeks ago, I have been searching my

own mind and researching why the minister would be doing it. Because I can

remember when the roles were changed and I was a Minister of Fisheries sitting

on that side of the floor and he was over here, I heard him many times talk

about how proud he was to be a fisherman. He talked about what it was like to be

up fishing off the Cape, 200 miles off the Cape in forty-knot winds, and how

proud he was to be a fisherman and how much he understood what the harvesters of

this Province were going through. I have also heard him talk about how proud he

was to be a member of the FFAW. He went further then that, Mr. Speaker, he went

on to say how proud he was to be an employee of the FFAW as he was on the West

Coast, how he worked diligently for the FFAW and how proud he was to do it.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at his resume today, if you look on the Web page

today, under the Minister of Fisheries, they will give you a little story about

the minister. All through it he talks about his accomplishments when he was an

employee of the FFAW. I scratch my head and I say: What has transpired in the

short walk from here to right there that this same individual, who was proud to

be a harvester, has turned his back, totally, totally, I say, on the harvesters

of this Province and will not even talk to them? He wants to push this

production quota system down their throats because the processors want it. They

have met with him, believe me. The processors have met with him, and the

committee of the processors have met with him. They have put the plan on the

table. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have even put their percentages that they want

of the total allowable catch of crab this year on the table, because they did it

with me.

Mr. Speaker, I, having been a school teacher and became the Minister of

Fisheries, always thought that maybe some day if this current minister ever

became minister he might do something for the fish harvesters of the Province

more than I could do for them. Mr. Speaker, I was sadly mistaken because when I

was the Minister of Fisheries, even though I was a simple teacher, I said to the

processors of this Province: You will never get production quotas until the FFAW

and the harvesters of this Province agree to it. Now, today to see a fisherman

himself stand in the House of Assembly and say you are going to have production

quotas whether or not you want them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

but a disgrace!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition on behalf of

over 200 people on the Burin Peninsula, people on the Burin Peninsula who are

very, very concerned about the health care on the Burin Peninsula, particularly

as it applies to the long-term care facility for Grand Bank.

As people are well aware, the facility in Grand Bank now is an old facility.

We have seniors who are in very, very poor conditions in terms of the kind of

conditions that they have to live in and stay and spend the last days of their

lives. The people on the Burin Peninsula are very, very concerned about this

government and are concerned for our senior citizens.

People are well aware of the Burin Peninsula and the traditions and the

occupations on the Burin Peninsula. Most of these residents, within this

long-term care facility in Grand Bank, are retired former deep-sea fishermen who

went through a very, very tremendous, difficult life with great hardships. Now,

in their later years, this government finds money that they can bring RNC

officers into the House of Assembly when it is not necessary, provide all these

other kinds of expenditures that really are not necessary, and you are saying to

a resident of Grand Bank or Burin or Grand Le Pierre or Terrenceville, and these

senior citizens, that you have to uproot and go to St. John's; go into a

seniors' facility in St. John's away from their family, away from their

friends.

I guess those of us who represent the Burin Peninsula are going to have to do

the same thing as the people in Stephenville did. We are going to have to get

the Marystown arena, I guess. We are going to have to get everybody on the Burin

Peninsula into the Marystown arena and invite the Premier and the Minister of

Health to the Burin Peninsula to see what will happen because the only action

you seem to get from this particular government is if you embarrass the

government.

When the Premier was going to go over to Corner Brook last year for a golf

tournament to raise money for the PC Party and he got word that the VON workers

were going to blockade and protest the golf tournament, his glorious golf

tournament, he came on the radio immediately and gave the money; came up with

the money immediately to settle the dispute at the VON.

When we found out that 1,000 people were going to go out to Stephenville

tonight and protest, the member - we still do not know if it is a government

policy or not because the Parliamentary Secretary or the Acting Minister of

Health has not gotten on their feet and said it is government policy. So, we

really do not know.

We all know what happened with the Minister of Fisheries who sent out a

letter and then the Premier said: Oh, that's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. WISEMAN: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

I am sorry. The Member for Trinity North is not in his seat, therefore has no

authority to deny leave. Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to present a petition on behalf of the

residents of Conception Bay North and from rural areas of this Province. The

prayer of the petition basically goes:

WHEREAS government recently announced it would be closing thirteen highway

depots and laying off permanent employees in rural areas of Newfoundland and

Labrador this spring, despite serious problems with highway safety and

infrastructure; and

WHEREAS Premier Williams promised NAPE and the public that there would be no

layoffs in the public service, and the Minister of Transportation and Works

stated in the House of Assembly that there would be no depot closures; and

WHEREAS government cuts over the past two years have meant a serious

degradation of services in rural areas of the Province, especially in Conception

Bay North and, I have to say, my neighbouring District of Trinity-Bay de Verde

as well;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon your

House of Assembly to urge government to re-evaluate its plan to release

permanent workers who have worked year-round to provide road maintenance and to

budget additional funding for essential workers.

Mr. Speaker, anyone on the Avalon Peninsula who has driven over the highways

of this Province, and anyone from the whole Province who has driven over the

highways, cannot believe government's measures to close thirteen depots in

this Province.

The minister stated a while ago that he was not closing any depots. Well, I

ask the minister what the diffe