April 19, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV

No. 13

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin this afternoon's session, the Speaker wishes to comment on

the disorder which has occurred in the public galleries for each of the past

five sitting days. The Speaker has repeatedly noted that visitors are welcome in

our House but they are not to participate or demonstrate in any way their

approval or disapproval of proceedings in the House.

Under our Standing Orders, the Speaker is mandated to preserve order and

decorum. This mandate reflects centuries of parliamentary practice and is

fundamental to the well-functioning of our Assembly. While members may disagree

with each other on the floor of the House, and while visitors may disagree or

agree passionately with what is said in the House by elected members of this

Parliament, there always must be respect for Parliament and its traditions,

including respect for the Speaker and his role in our democracy. To this end, I

respectfully ask for the co-operation of all visitors and for the understanding

of all elected members. Disruptions in our Assembly amount to contempt of

Parliament and interference with the functioning of our democracy. The Speaker

asks for greater co-operation and, again, the Speaker welcomes all visitors to

our House.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon with have members' statements as follows: a

statement by the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; the Member for Fortune

Bay-Cape la Hune; the Member for Trinity North; and the Member for Bay of

Islands.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I raise the issue of security and access to the building. I was

informed on my way to the House this afternoon that there have been some changes

in the security provisions in terms of access to the building, hence access to

this House since this House is within the confines of the building.

I was advised that, as of today, persons can only access the building by way

of a photo ID, and that is to get into the building, of course. We had an

incident where someone tried to come here to the House but, because of this new

policy about photo IDs for today, they actually could not get in.

My question is, first of all: Is this something that Your Honour has imposed

in terms of security vis- B -vis

the House, or is this something that works and services have done with regard to

access to buildings? I think any security changes of that nature, as a common

courtesy, and as an officer of this House, we ought to be informed if that

happens.

My understanding is that if anything is going to be done to interfere with or

set up new parameters and rules for access to this House, I think everybody who

is a member here ought to be given the courtesy of being told that it is

happening. It certainly did not happen in this case.

I am all in favour of security. Don't get us wrong, the Opposition is in

favour of security, and whatever reasonable provisions must be put in place

should be put in place, but I think as a common courtesy to members here there

is a process that ought to be followed. It can be dealt with either by an

all-party committee of this House or it can be dealt with by the IEC, and we

have had several incidents where things get done and people find out, we find

out, after the fact. I just think there is absolutely no need of that. Also, if

the security provisions have been changed as a result of some government policy

change in security, I think it is incumbent upon government to notify people.

Your Honour indicated to me, when I mentioned this to you briefly, that

persons were told today that it would be voluntary for today. That is not the

experience that we understand happened today. People were told that you had to

have your photo or you did not get in.

If it is a government policy, I think, again, in fairness to the public, they

ought to be advised what the new policy is and there should be a time frame

chosen to give people an opportunity to prepare properly.

As we say, we have no problems with security provisions of any kind that are

reasonable, but it is another example again where somebody has changed rules

that impact people, and the common decency and courtesy of informing somebody

that it has been done was not done.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to that, concern has been

expressed by the police and by the Department of Justice that there is a

possibility of some serious occurrences happening in this House, or around this

House. As a result - and, of course, obviously the Speaker speaks for the

confines of the House - government is going to do what it takes and what is

necessary in order to secure the safety of the people who are in this House.

There has been evidence of spitting from the gallery. There is evidence of

empty alcohol bottles being found outside, of flasks being found outside, where

people are consuming alcohol. Threats are being made on Open Line, and threats

are being made in the parking lot of this building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you do not mind, I will finish. This is a serious

matter, if you do not mind allowing me to finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

co-operation.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to compromise the safety

of the people in this House. The hon. gentleman opposite has indicated that he

is prepared to try and incite situations in this House. He is doing everything

he can to create a situation in this House. Well, we are the government, we are

responsible, and we are going to take care of the safety. It is based on the

advice of the police in this particular district, in this particular area.

Quite simply, we are going to do what we can to protect the safety. If it

requires a photo ID, that means that anybody who conducts any kind of a criminal

act, either in this House or outside of this House, on the grounds or anywhere

else, is subject to the law, and that is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is very telling, that it is the Premier who may utter these

comments here now and not the Government House Leader, nor the minister of works

and services. Again, Mr. Speaker, that exactly is the point I am trying to make.

No one has any objection to any security arrangements, but the Premier should

not, cannot and will not be allowed to take this place right here on his back.

This is the people's House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: If the Premier wants to enforce security provisions, by all

means do so, but I have as much right to be here as he does. My rights will not

be infringed by him without proper notice, and that is all we request here. This

nonsense about security and whatever, get on with whatever security you need but

do not get on with the nonsense that you have no need or requirement to inform

the public, sir. I have a right to be here and the public have a right to be

informed, and you shall not be allowed to take this place on your back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has had consultations with the Sergeant-at-Arms and with the

other civil authorities in the last numbers of days, and security to this House

and within the parliamentary precinct is, indeed, a concern for the Speaker and

for all members in this House.

I want to say to all members, based on the recommendations that the Speaker

has received from the Sergeant-at-Arms and from the civil authorities, that

there will be a voluntary requirement today for a photo ID. On tomorrow, I do

believe notice has been given, it will be a general requirement for all visitors

to the parliamentary precinct.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

It is very important, and I know how seriously you take your role in terms of

being the person in charge of the precincts of the House of Assembly, which is a

different issue - as you would know and you could articulate to anyone - than

any particular rule that the Premier himself might want to put in place on an

ongoing basis with respect to getting into this building or the West Block,

because it is very telling.

The Member for Humber Valley said, when I said: Well, we didn't hear about

it. Nobody asked us. Because you, Your Honour, said: I have concern for the

safety of all members. Well, we did not express any about our safety. So nobody

bothered to check with fourteen members on this side of the House. The Member

for Humber Valley said: But you are not the government. You would know more than

anybody, Mr. Speaker, that this House is not run by the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: They can decide what happens out in the rest of the building,

they can make laws out around the rest of the Province, they can drive people

thirty-five feet away from the door to smoke if they want because they are the

government, but they cannot unilaterally set the rules for the House of

Assembly.

I ask, under a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if you would consider

soliciting the views of all members in this House as to whether or not it is

reasonable, right and proper that the rule for the future, for anybody wanting

to come to the public gallery of the House of Assembly, is that you must produce

a photo ID or you will not be able to come into the public gallery, regardless

of whether there is any dispute going on or not. Because this dispute, like

others, will end.

Then the rule that I have understood you to say as the Chair, that based on

some advice you have gotten, without consulting fourteen members of the House at

all - I believe that is a breach of our privilege - is that the rule, forever

and a day after this, is that if any citizen of this Province, this country,

anywhere else in the world wants to visit this public gallery that you have now

decided that there must be a photo ID produced.

I can tell you, when I visit the House of Commons in Ottawa I am asked to

rule was adopted. It was consistent with parliamentary practice elsewhere in the

country and around the world in democracies. I have never been asked for a photo

ID to go sit in the gallery in the House of Commons. I have been into the

Chamber in London, England, the motherland of democracy that we build our

systems on, I have never been asked for a photo ID. On what basis I ask, Mr.

Speaker? I plead with you, on a matter of privilege, to reconsider the statement

that you just made. Have some time and show some real respect for all of the

members in this House as forty-eight equal elected members. If the Premier and

the government - as the Member for Humber Valley would want to say - want to go

outside and make some different rules, because I can tell you one other thing,

Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. GRIMES: It is a point of privilege, I would say to the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He might not understand the severity of it,

but it is a very serious point. You have to be able to give the time to make

your point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: As the Minister of Transportation and Works from Lewisporte

would say: My father told me: Heave it out of you, Tommy. Well, each member says

their piece in their own way. It is the Speaker who will tell me when I should

sit down and stop, not the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Let me tell you this, this morning when we first heard that IDs were being

required for the first time in history - at somebody's order, IDs are being

requested. It was not as you described, that it was voluntary. The first order

was: If you don't show an ID, you don't get in. When we became aware of it

in our office, we asked questions. They said: Well, it will be voluntary for

today.

We checked in the West Block, and there was a different set of rules in the

West Block. You could walk in the West Block with no ID, but you could not come

in through this door unless you had an ID. Then we actually had a person over

there at the desk, because we sent them there, and we said: Go over now that

they know we are onto this and try again to get in. The second time they tried

to get in, they had just gotten a call from someone saying: You had better start

asking for some IDs over here, too, because it does not look too good that you

can walk into that government building a few feet away without an ID, but the

rule is you cannot walk into this government building unless you have an ID. So

what are the rules?

It is up to the government, I say to the Member for Humber Valley, to make

the rules about security for the government property and the government

buildings. If the Premier himself feels, under advice, that he needs additional

security, which other premiers have had in the past, and rightfully so, so be

it, do all of those things, but I plead, as a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker,

that any security measures applying to the forty-eight members of this

Legislature and the people's democratic House be done by yourself, respecting

the rights of all forty-eight members.

I cannot say it any more forcefully than that, we have not been consulted in

any way, shape or form about any change of security procedures with regard to

accessing this Legislature. So, I would ask you to take that under advisement,

Mr. Speaker, and we would gladly send some people to meet with you and

representatives of the other parties, to speak on behalf of all the members, as

to whether or not we think that the Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador

should be the only one in Canada, to my knowledge, that would require a photo ID

for the members of the general public to come to the public gallery. It is a

very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, and I would humbly ask you to reconsider it and

to involve all forty-eight members from all three parties in that discussion

before you make a final determination as to what is in the best interest of our

safety in the operation of our democratic rights inside this Legislature.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

To the point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition, he has

singularly focused in on access to the public galleries and, to the best of my

knowledge, no one has been denied.

With respect to security arrangements in the House, the Leader of the

Opposition is correct, that is neither up to the Opposition nor the government.

The Speaker, solely and wholly, decides on security arrangements with respect to

the House of Assembly and the precincts of the House.

My second point is that the Leader of the Opposition has made the point that,

for the first time in history, we have required identification or some sort of

visitor accreditation to get into the House of Assembly. That is clearly not

true. I will just read to him his own statement on November 19, 2001, after

September 11. He said, "The use of photo ID cards for staff will be an

important component..." -

MR. GRIMES: Staff.

MR. E. BYRNE: If you will let me finish the statement. I listened to you

in silence, and I appreciate the points you make and I hope that you can afford

me the same opportunity. Seeing as you believe you own rights are breached, I

wouldn't want you to interrupt when I am trying to make our point.

He said, "The use of photo ID cards for staff will be an important

component of a more secure environment." Visitors will always be welcome to

the public galleries. "Other important security measures are currently

under review, including the use of passes and accreditations for visitors. These

new protocols will assist with visitor identification and management of any

emergency situation that may arise." That was a statement that the Leader

of the Opposition made in 2001 when he was Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, that we can choose to overly

politicize this. There is no attempt by government, in any way, shape or form,

to limit anybody from coming to the House. We can see, today, that the seats are

full. Obviously people had the opportunity to go through the security provision

in government buildings outside the precincts. Government will not attempt in

any way, nor should we and nor do we have the right to attempt in any way, shape

or form, to limit or inhibit any member from coming to visit the public gallery.

If there are situations that arise within the public gallery or the precincts of

the House, that is for the Speaker, in his judgement, to decide upon in

consultation with the appropriate security officials. It is not for government

to decide. We have never stepped into that arena, and nor would we try.

I do want to correct the mis-perception by the Leader of the Opposition. We

are not the only place in the country. I have been in the Mother of Parliaments

too, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and the gallery sits behind screens

and glass. I do not know if you have seen that, but I certainly have. In other

Legislatures across the country there are more stringent security provisions put

in place. As a matter of fact, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, based

upon my own personal experience, this gallery is more open than most in the

country. If you want to go to Ottawa, you have to pass through three x-ray

screens, you have to take everything out of your pockets. They secure you this

way, just the same as if you were going through an airport.

The fact of the matter is that what you have said is not entirely true, so I

do want to correct, based on my own experiences across the country, in visiting

other Legislatures that I have been in, in the last decade, that this, in no

way, is severe or could be considered severe by any comparative standard.

The fact of the matter is, nobody is limited from coming into this House, nor

would we try. That is up to the Speaker, and on the basis of that, Mr. Speaker,

I would submit there is no point of privilege because government has not tried

to stop people from coming into the House.

The last point: All we have done, Mr. Speaker, is act upon the advice of the

appropriate personnel within government, and in no way, shape or form has anyone

been denied from coming to the public gallery.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not be belabour the point, but it is very telling, what I did

ask the Speaker to do was to consider involving all of us equally, as members of

this House, in making decisions about this House. The sad part about it is that

the Government House Leader would try to compare what is happening here today to

the terrorist attack of 9-11.

When we made a public statement, which is what nobody made today - there was

no public announcement or statement today - the Premier made a decision about

what was going to happen outside, and he gave examples of people spitting from

the galleries. Well, a photo ID produced out there does not stop someone from

spitting from the galleries. The screen that the Government House Leader talked

about, which is in some Parliaments, glass screens, that stops spitting. So, if

the concern is to stop spitting, why don't we have the Speaker up announcing

today that there will be a screen put up in the front of the gallery? They can

still hear and they can see, but there will be a protection, if that is the

case. That is the example that the Premier used.

Mr. Speaker, presenting a photo ID outside the door, before you come in, and

then we do have to go through screens here, the same kind of security that is at

airports - you have to empty your pockets if there is anything metal - there are

detectors here. This place is deemed to be secure from that point of view.

If there are other issues that the Speaker believes - and all I have asked

under a point of privilege is, Mr. Speaker, if you believe it after consultation

with the members. The Government House Leader says he wasn't involved in it.

They were not asked. We were not asked. You said you had some advice from some

security personnel. When we have matters about the House, let's convene a

committee. Let's put some members of all three Parties and give us an

opportunity to discuss what we think, as forty-eight equally-elected

representatives of the people, as to what the process should be, what the

protocol should be, and what the security provisions should be for the people's

House. That is all I ask, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

First of all, I take exception to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition

is trying to draw an analogy that I am somehow comparing what is going on in

Newfoundland and Labrador today to a terrorist attack. I mean, how ridiculous.

That clearly is not the case. The only point I was making -

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to your leader. I only appeal for the same

opportunity, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

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

the opportunity -

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

the time -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The fact of the matter is that in no way was I trying to draw any such

comparison. I take exception to that. The only point I was trying to make was

that it is not the first - at one time anybody could walk into the House. When

the Member for Bellevue was Works, Services and Transportation Minister, based

upon expert advice, he made a statement in the House one day that changed those

protocols. No one is being denied the opportunity from getting into the House.

To the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made about members being

informed, it is my understanding that the Speaker, on a regular basis, informs

both myself, as Government House Leader, and the Opposition House Leader, on any

changes or situations, and he has done that over time; but, if there is a way

that you want to be more informed, or we would like to be more informed, Mr.

Speaker, that is your call. We would be happy to participate in anything that

you may see fit in your call as Speaker to keep Members of the Legislature

informed about whatever is going on, whether that be through the IEC or whether

you meet with us on a regular basis on a Monday morning, Tuesday or Wednesday

morning, or whatever. That is your call. All I can say is that, as one member

acting in the capacity as Government House Leader, we would certainly be

prepared to participate at any level at that point upon your call.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker thanks hon. members for their presentations on

this very important issue. The Speaker will take the matter under advisement;

however, the Speaker would like to invite the House Leaders to dialogue with him

in the privacy of his Chambers either later this afternoon or perhaps on

tomorrow morning. I will try to arrange a convenient time that would be mutually

agreeable to all parties. We will also include in that meeting representatives

from the New Democratic Party as well. I will try to arrange that meeting within

the next number of hours.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I attended a celebration of the thirty-sixth

annual Charter Night at the Community Five Lions Club in Dildo. During this

event, many individuals were recognized for their contributions to the Club.

Clarence Mollon, King Lion of the Community Five Lions Club, was voted 2005 Lion

of the Year for his continuous commitment to the Club, outstanding leadership

abilities, and willingness to lend a hand whenever possible.

The Community Five Lions Club has made significant financial contributions to

their community. The amount of donations given out this year was approximately

$15,000, which was shared among five communities from Blaketown to New Harbour.

In appreciation of all the hard work by the service group, and in keeping with

the theme of National Volunteer Week, I would like to extend my appreciation for

their involvement and dedication to the community.

Mr. Speaker, during this event, the Lions Club presented an award of bravery

to an outstanding individual in my district. I am very proud to recognize Shandi

Reid of New Harbour, a member of the 209 Great Eastern Sea Cadets, for her

courage. During training sessions in May, 2003, Shandi rescued a fellow Sea

Cadet, Courtney Brown, from drowning. Shandi has been recognized as a heroine in

her community, and I would like to recognize her for her tremendous act of

bravery.

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

congratulating the Community Five Lions Club for their continued support in our

community, and I would ask all members to join the Lions Club and myself in

recognizing Shandi Reid for her courageous act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a volunteer appreciation banquet in

Milltown - Head Bay d'Espoir. The town and Strategic Plan Implementation

Committee organized the event to thank community volunteers for their dedication

and hard work.

Milltown - Head Bay d'Espoir has a population of less than 900, and they

have 250 volunteers in thirty-five organizations. One hundred and eighty-six of

those volunteers were presented certificates of appreciation last night. This

certificate was designed by local volunteer, Herb Dunphy. That is the one that

Herb designed, the certificate.

Two of the volunteers, Ms Sue Dunphy and Ms Eileen Colbourne, wrote a poem

reflecting the reason for celebrating volunteer efforts in their community. Mr.

Speaker, on their behalf, I would like to share the poem with members of the

House.

The "Volunteer" Ground

O this is the place where

The volunteers gather

In all kinds of capacities, in our fair towns

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

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

There's a large number of us

In Head Bay and Milltown

Who give of our energy, talents and time

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

To keep our community working just fine.

There's Gordon our mayor

In charge of our future

With lots of experience, because of his years

Together with Clarence, Herb, Jerry and Ivan

There's George and there's Richard

Now aren't they all dears.

We've gathered together

To praise your good efforts

You volunteers who give of your time

We thank you for helping

To community building

The benefits surely will outdo our rhyme!!!

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate members of the Strategic Plan

Implementation Committee for organizing such a remarkable event. Members

include: Sue Dunphy, Boyd Pack, Clarence Kelly, Georgina Brushett, Leveson

Kearley and Muriel Marks.

During this Volunteer Week, I ask all members of the House to join me in

congratulating volunteers in Milltown-Head Bay d'Espoir, and all volunteers in

the Bay d'Espoir region, and in the Province as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Sunday past, I had the pleasure of attending the twenty-second annual

Ceremonial Review of the 2997 Royal Oak Army Cadet Corp in Little Heart's

Ease.

Mr. Speaker, in the twenty-two year history of the Army Cadet movement in the

Southwest Arm area of Trinity North, hundreds of young men and women have

benefitted from a tremendous program focused on the development of our future

leaders. This year, the Corp boasts a membership of thirty young men and women.

Mr. Speaker, during the Annual Review we witnessed demonstrations in drill,

band, public speaking, bush craft, marksmanship, as well as guitar and piano

recitals.

Mr. Speaker, this year the Reviewing Officer was Captain Ian Lambert, a

career Military Officer who is currently stationed in Ottawa, who himself is a

graduate of the 2997 Royal Oak Cadet movement. It was indeed a proud moment for

him to return for the Annual Inspection of the Cadet Corp that gave him the

introduction to his military career.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day many awards were presented. The top four,

however, were: The Lord Strathcona Medal was awarded to Alicia Seward. The

Legion Medal of Excellence was awarded to Stephanie Smith. The 2997 Outstanding

Cadet Award was given to Lucas Lambert, and the Duke of Edinburgh Award to

Darrin Marsh.

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

congratulating and celebrating the great work of the cadets, the volunteers, and

the many leaders who help this movement throughout the Little Heart's Ease and

Southwest Arm area of my district.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to a group

of students from my district who are members of The Pallister's Players drama

club of Templeton Collegiate High School in Gillams.

The Templeton drama club recently won the regional high school drama festival

for their performance of the play, Trouble is Eating My Pants . This play,

under the direction of Steve Perchard, was also named Best Play in the festival.

This year, the three day festival was held from April 7 to April 9 at Regina

High School in Corner Brook. Eight drama clubs competed at the festival for a

chance to represent the region at the 2005 provincial festival which will be

held at Bonne Bay Academy in Woody Point in early May..

In addition to the club's win, Templeton actors Jeff Anderson and Chastity

Wickens won awards for best supporting actors, while Devon Sheppard was also

recognized for his acting abilities.

The club also received an award for Best Costumes.

I am pleased to note that this is the second year in a row that Templeton

Collegiate's Pallister's Players has won the regional festival.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations

to this group of talented students, and offer them and all participants best

wishes as they prepare to compete in the provincial high school drama festival.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I attended a Bronze Medal Award

Ceremony in Stephenville for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Award Young Canadians Challenge is a citizenship

and leadership program for young women and men. Through the program, youth

participate in fitness, skill, service and expedition activities and receive

awards at the Bronze, Silver, and Gold levels.

The program is administered in Newfoundland and Labrador by a volunteer

Provincial Council in partnership with the Department of Human Resources, Labour

and Employment.

The Bronze Medal Award Ceremony this past weekend gave me an opportunity to

meet some very talented youth of our Province. The twenty-nine Bronze Medal

recipients obviously take pride in personal and community development. I am sure

my colleagues will join me in congratulating them on their impressive

accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to inform the House of a number of activities

concerning the Duke of Edinburgh Award over the next few months. In May, the

Western Council will be hosting the Silver Award Ceremony. The Honourable Edward

Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, will present Silver

Awards to approximately eighty young people from across the Province.

In addition, His Royal Highness, The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, will be

in the Province on May 31 and June 1 to take

part in two Duke of Edinburgh

Awards Program functions. On May 31, there will be a youth soiree in St. John's

for all participants. On June 1, His Royal Highness will take

part in the Gold

Awards Ceremony honouring over 100 of our youth.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to encourage our youth and offer meaningful

programs to help them develop strong social and professional skills. Programs

such as the Duke of Edinburgh Awards provide important recognition of the

contributions our young people make in their own communities and to the Province

overall.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say

that each and every one of us on this side of the House want to congratulate the

twenty-nine young people who were awarded the bronze medals this past weekend,

and to say that we know the Duke of Edinburgh Award is an exciting program, a

challenging program, where youth learn about citizenship and leadership. We also

look forward to the awarding of the silver and gold medals this summer and look

forward to His Royal Highness, Prince Edward, travelling to our Province.

I am sure each member of this House looks forward to seeing the list of

people who were successful this year in receiving the awards, and we want to

congratulate each and every one of them and all those involved in the program.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We would like to be associated, as well, Mr. Speaker, with the words that the

minister has in her statement, acknowledging the work of young people in our

Province. It is a good program that acknowledges the work of young people and it

is a program that teaches them the skills and abilities that they will need.

We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the youth of today are the leadership

of tomorrow, and the more training and the more things they take

part in today

the more prepared they will be for the leadership roles they will assume in the

future.

Thank you.

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

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, when questioned about a potential

conflict of interest situation in making decisions regarding the crab industry,

the Minister of Finance stated that he didn't feel he was in a conflict of

interest because his brothers didn't live in the same house he was in. The

minister stated yesterday that he divested himself of his fishery and other

business interests in the 1990s.

I ask the minister once again today: Will he tell this House to whom he

either sold or transferred his business interests at that time?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I divested of all of my interests in, I think it was May of 1993. It might be

early June, but May I am fairly certain. I divested and those companies now are

not in - family members don't even own those companies in any way. The person

I divested to in the family is out of the business entirely and, to my

knowledge, hasn't been involved for several years, certainly for a number of

years, and has no interest in the fishing industry, to my knowledge.

The only ones who are involved, to my knowledge, in ownership in the business

are two who are minor shareholders of a company owned by the brother of the

Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Ches Penney, who is the major shareholder -

they are minor shareholders - whose sister sat in Cabinet for a number of years,

who is an owner of numerous enterprises in this Province, a very successful

businessman. If we had more around like him to create employment in our

Province, we would be a lot better off.

I have never considered the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, when she sat in

Cabinet, or any other people, to be in any way in conflict, in any way with

numerous holdings all over this Province, in other than fisheries issues and

other issues to be in conflict, because it is not according to the regulations.

She was not, according to the regulations or anybody else, and I am not and I

have no interest whatsoever. Twelve years ago in Opposition, under no obligation

in anyway, Mr. Speaker, did I have to sell any assets whatsoever. I sold every

asset I owned in the fishing industry. So not only would there be conflict,

there would be no perceived conflict. Even when I was in Opposition, there was

no requirement to do so; long before any regulations came in.

I am absolutely clear on that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and it

is wrong and it is improper to go on public airwaves with a character

assassination.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I guess he does not want to tell us exactly whom it is that he

divested the interest in.

Mr. Speaker, in light of these conflict of interest concerns and the

potential of a minister who is participating in decisions that impact his

immediate family, I ask the Premier: What conflict of interest guidelines do you

expect your ministers to follow when participating in Cabinet decisions relating

to family members?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will follow the same guidelines that were followed by the previous

government, for the Leader of the Opposition. As a former premier, he knows what

those guidelines are. He knows how we behaved when we were on the other side of

the House. There was no character assassination. There was no attempt to defame

someone's character, someone like the Minister of Finance, who has an

impeccable reputation in this Province. To go on a character assassination is

really pitiful, quite frankly, and very unfortunate. As a matter of fact, this

particular gentleman has a legal lawsuit against the hon. gentleman opposite for

the statements that he has made. There is no doubt about it, what he said.

Also, Mr. Speaker, if I can, while the hon. gentleman opposite was in power

as Premier of this Province, we acted as a responsible Opposition because - in

fact, the hon. Premier's brother Ross was a negotiator for CUPE, at a time

when he was Premier, and he gave a raise to the public

section unions. Your

brother was a public sector negotiator. Did we come up and ask you whether you

excused yourself? His brother happens to be a pastor, was he involved in the

denominational education discussions? His other brothers actually work at

Abitibi. In fact, did he excuse himself when the legislation was passed for the

No. 7 machine in Grand Falls? Did he excuse himself on that? Finally, when your

good wife, who works at NAPE, sits there in the office, in a very important

position, did we ever, for one minute, question your -

AN HON. MEMBER: The NLTA

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am sorry, the NLTA.

Did we ever question your integrity or try and attack your character or

assassinate you or your family like you are trying to do this man? That is

absolutely despicable!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Given the nature of the questions that have been asked, the Speaker has

extended the usual time limit of one minute. However, I would ask members, who

are responding to questions, if they would keep their answers within the one

minute time frame.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier might want to check the record, for the record. When members,

like the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, were involved and engaged in Cabinet

discussions about the fishery that might involve her brother, she excused

herself from the Cabinet and had it recorded by the Clerk of the Council. Check

your facts.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries continuously states that there will be

an independent arbitrator who will make decisions regarding raw material shares.

However, in a letter of April 15 from his deputy minister, the deputy minister

states, and these are the words: The word arbitrator is used only as a term of

convenience. This is not a formal arbitration because the minister has the final

say in the shares.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, how can he stand in this House and say this

person is an independent arbitrator when his deputy minister writes to everybody

and says the exact opposite?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite easy to say that. Simply put, the person who will

arbitrate the shares in a raw material sharing system is independent of

government, from outside of government. I believe the person, if I am not

mistaken, is a lawyer downtown. I have no idea who the person is. I would not

know him if he walked into the gallery or in the House of Assembly today. I have

never met him. I do not care if I ever do, as a fact of the matter.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this person is to arbitrate the

shares. Those shares - as the former Premier would know and as his former

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would know - can only be implemented as a

conditional licence by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Similar to all

other conditions and licences that are applied from time to time on fish

processing operations in this Province; just the same as there were fish

processing conditions applied by the former Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture when he was there. That is where the authority rests. That is how we

plan on doing it. Mr. Speaker, he knows full well exactly what the process is.

That is what we are planning on doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So it looks like there is a pretty thorough piece of work done. There is an

arbitrator in place. The minister has no idea who he is, what his credentials

are. I guess somebody over there knows. I guess, maybe the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has continuously stated that there

will be a minimum quota of 90 per cent of the previous three year average for

each plant across the Province. In the same letter that I just referenced, April

15, from the deputy minister, the deputy minister states as follows: Companies

do not receive an automatic 90 per cent of their three year average purchases.

This would potentially result in an oversubscription of the quota.

So you have a minister saying you are guaranteed 90 per cent, and a deputy

minister writing him saying you cannot have it, because if we give you 90 per

cent there is not enough crab to go around.

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

or the deputy minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, both. It is quite simple. In case the member does not know, the

quota was just reduced by roughly 8 per cent, so it is very difficult to ensure

- to be sure that if somebody has their share, based on 90 per cent of the

previous three year average, obviously you cannot give them 90 per cent. You

cannot give them that number this year. It is 90 per cent of the three year

average, which is the base. That is then applied to the Total Allowable Catch

for this year, and that results in the number that they will be allowed to

process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday in this Legislature the Minister of Fisheries stated, in answer

to a direct question, that he did not know what the quotas would be for the St.

Anthony plant or any of the fish plants across the Province.

I ask the minister again today: Why did he provide that misleading answer

last Thursday when he had already sent letters last month, as early as March 22,

advising plants of their initial quotas for this year? Why did he mislead the

House in that fashion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely did not mislead the House. What was sent out on

March 22 - if that is the date, I cannot remember the exact date - what was sent

out in a letter to all processors was: This is based on the available

information in this department, based on information that has been provided by

your company and your processing facility. This is what 90 per cent of the three

year average represents, based on the information that you have provided to us.

If this information is not correct, please contact the department and we will

see if we can work out any disagreement on this, see if there is other

information that has not been disclosed.

In some cases, some companies have come forth with audited statements showing

that the numbers that they had disclosed to us were, in fact, in error.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that is how the 90 per cent scenario got

developed. What the final number will be is yet to be determined, and that will

be determined based on the arbitration process which is ongoing as we speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is becoming more obvious every day that the minister has bungled this

entire system from the start. There is no independent arbitrator. There is no 90

per cent quota for anybody, and there is no way, he said last week, to get the

processing companies to open their books to identify what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from some processors whose initial offer for this

year was 60 per cent of last year's quota, and from others whose initial offer

for this year is over 90 per cent of last year's quota. There does not seem to

be any uniform set of rules.

I ask the minister: What set of rules did he use in sending out the initial

offers to the processors, and were the same rules applied to the smallest

operators as to the biggest operators?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible that numbers would be

different on last year's production. We are using a three year average.

Obviously, every operation in the Province did not process the same amount last

year as they did the year before, and the year before that. A three year average

generates a number that is not consistent with any one year necessarily. Unless

somebody processed 1 million pounds in each of the three years, then you would

expect that you would come up with a 90 per cent number at 900,000. Obviously,

the Leader of the Opposition, when he was teaching, was not a math teacher or he

would be able to figure that out. I suppose he would, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers that have been generated, have been generated in a

consistent manner. The numbers that have been generated -

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

At the beginning of the afternoon session -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

At the beginning of the afternoon session, the Speaker asked all visitors for

their co-operation. If there should be further disruptions, the Speaker will

have no choice but to have the galleries cleared.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know one thing about math. The three year average for St.

Anthony is zero, if the minister wants to talk about that.

Mr. Speaker, in the March 22 letter to plant owners, the minister stated -

and it is the minister's letter, not the deputy. Here are his words: It is

important that each operator's share be developed in time for an April

fishery. In the same letter the minister stated - and these are his words: The

arbitrator will finish his meetings and make his recommendations to me by April

7; some time ago.

I ask the minister: What new timelines does he have in place for the

arbitrations and the possible opening of the fishery, since he is already

somewhat late with his previous timelines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the arbitrator has been given two weeks to consult with the

people in the industry, to hear their submissions, and the numbers will be

generated subsequent to that. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason why, as

it relates to the sharing, the fishery cannot open. There is nothing that would

require the fishery to not open, as a result of a lack of hard and fast numbers

being generated. The fishery carries on for some period of time and we can

easily have the numbers generated before the closure of the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It sounds fairly typical of this government. We will do it by the seat of our

pants. We will fly along as we go and hope for the best.

Mr. Speaker -

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

(inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I don't mean to get the minister upset today, I am just

trying to ask some pretty straightforward questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to ask some straightforward

questions and get some information.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that processors have been notified that

their hearing with the arbitrator, which will happen sometime in the next two

weeks, is limited to the maximum of a two-hour time period? In other words, a

processor fighting for their plant, fighting for their workers, fighting for

their community, is told by the minister that you can fight, but when the two

hours is up shut up and go home.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a two-hour time limit placed on

arbitration hearings, and that is done because the numbers that have been

provided to us - people who have arguments to make, if they were doing things

properly over the past number of years and living by the letter of the law, as

it relates to their declarations, their submissions, on a daily basis, or their

production records, then the numbers that the department has should be accurate.

If they are not, Mr. Speaker, it is solely as a result of misreporting by

processing facilities in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

every time.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Does he have any concerns, any different or

renewed concerns, today, now that the largest - if not the largest, one of the

largest - crab processors in the Province is no longer supporting the approach

that he and the Premier are trying to unilaterally impose in this sector?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that does not surprise me, that one of the

largest - if not the largest - crab processing companies in this Province is

opposed to what we are trying to do. They are opposed because they do not like

the fact that we are trying to limit corporate concentration in this industry.

They are opposed because they do not like the approach that we are taking on a

limiting control of ownership in the industry. They are opposed, Mr. Speaker,

because they do not like the way that we are trying to share the resource

around. We are trying to achieve some regional balance in the Province. They are

opposed, Mr. Speaker, because they would rather see us take the approach that

the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the former Premier and the

former government, took for too many years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - that has led us to the point where 50 per cent of the crab

production in the Province is controlled by four companies. That happened, Mr.

Speaker, on their watch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the people of the Province are glad to know that everybody

else is wrong and at fault except the minister and the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, just for the record - my last question - the vast majority of

fish harvesters - I think the minister would acknowledge this - do not support

production quotas. The largest crab processor in the Province no longer supports

production quotas and the heavy-handed approach. The union does not support

this. Nobody supports this, that we can tell, anywhere in the Province, except

the Fisheries Minister and the Premier.

I ask the minister. Now that he has clearly bungled this completely and

totally, how does he expect to have any credibility as the minister when

everybody else in the sector and in the industry thinks he is wrong?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, let's just lay the cards on the table. It is

time for the people of the Province, the people in the fishing industry and

everybody in government, both in Opposition and in government, to make up their

minds what they want in this industry. Do they want government to manage the

industry? Do they want issues like regional balance, corporate concentration of

the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, dealt with or not? Because if

they do, this is the plan that was laid out by us, based on a report by Eric

Dunne, based on a report by Dave Vardy, based on a report by David Jones, based

on a report by Richard Cashin.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, if people do not want that, we can pull

back. We can pull back and we can let the market and we can let free enterprise

drive the industry. We can pull back.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker orders that the galleries be closed, and in view of the disorder

that has occurred in the House, that they remain closed for the balance of the

sitting day.

This House is in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

It is my understanding that we have, according to my calculation, about ten

minutes and fourteen seconds left for Question Period. Question Period can now

resume.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has come to our attention that a serious situation has developed in

relation to the delivery of health care services in the Trinity-Conception area.

Because of the resignation of a medical control officer, effective midnight

tonight, at the Carbonear Hospital, ambulance operators will not be able to

administer services such as defibrillation, attach an IV or administer drugs. I

ask the minister: Is he aware of this horrible situation, and what does he

intend to do about it?

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

Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

it.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, I am sure that will be of little consolation to

the people who are going to get an ambulance at 12:00 o'clock tonight and be

refused medication.

Mr. Speaker, some gas companies have now voluntarily reduced gas prices. Even

the oil companies see a need to reduce prices, but this government that is awash

in cash from taxes collected off gas does not want to give consumers a break.

I ask the minister: Will this government consider limiting the excise tax on

gasoline, or are they going to continue to gouge consumers?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The tax on gasoline is based on per litre. It is 16.5 cents. It does not

matter what the consumption is, it is still the same price. If the price was 20

cents or $5, it is still 16.5 cents. We are getting a lower percent of the

revenues on gas now, as a percentage, than we got before the increase. Our

uptake has not changed on it.

Mr. Speaker, we are not awash in cash. We are facing a $500 million deficit

put into us by the people on that side of the House, and now they want us to

spend and put us right back from where we are trying to take us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the public out there now this afternoon understood all of that. It

is just like talking to a calculator. How do you expect people in rural

Newfoundland to be able to relate to that?

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

interruption formula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

the lips going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members on both sides for their co-operation. The Chair has recognized

the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I ask him if he would pose his

question now.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the interruption formula is not

working. Gas prices have been going up when they should be coming down, and when

they do come down they do not come down as quickly as they go up.

I want to ask the Minister of Government Services: When is she going to amend

the Petroleum Products Pricing Act to offer better protection to consumers of

this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we have gas regulations in this Province that

were put in by the former Administration. The prices are reviewed in the middle

of the month. We have a mechanism in place there. If the prices are consistent

for five days, whether they are up or down, this interruption formula can be put

in place to do the adjustment.

The regulations were there when my hon. colleague was minister. He never saw

fit to change them. The regulations are working, as far as I am concerned, as a

government. The citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador asked for this, the

consumers, and that is what they have. It stabilizes the gas prices at the

pumps, and that is what it is intended to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister does not understand

what her formula is all about. She does not understand the principles.

Interruption was put in place to protect the small rural communities of this

Province, which this government knows nothing about. That is what interruption

was used for.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a quick question: Does she think it

is fair that when gas prices increase the formula protects the rich oil

companies, and when prices go down it does not protect the consumers in the same

way?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, gas prices are beyond the government's control.

That is dictated by the world market.

The regulations that are in place -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: There has been nothing change since the former government put

those regulations in place. They were put in to stabilize the prices at the gas

pumps, which they are doing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Acting Minister of Health, and it concerns the

provincial drug plan.

I want to say to the minister that our Province has one of the highest

percentages of people with no drug coverage, private or provincial, in the

country, at a rate of approximately 32 per cent. During the First Ministers'

meeting in September, it was agreed that no Canadians should go without drug

coverage in this country.

I want to ask the minister - for catastrophic drugs - when will the minister

be bringing in a plan that will assist people to acquire drugs that they need,

that they cannot afford to purchase at the present time?

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

Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was one of the items on the agenda at the meeting with the Health

Ministers that was held this past weekend. The federal minister was not there.

It is an issue that we need to raise with the federal government. They are not

using the term catastrophic drug anymore, and it has not been clearly defined

what a catastrophic drug is, but we do indicate that there are programs in place

in our Province, and we spend $114 million a year now for low income people or

seniors in dealing with those, and there are certain special authorizations that

you can follow and get approved.

Some catastrophic drugs have to go through a proper process to ensure that

they are safe. They have gone through proper research on some of these drugs,

and some of these are now in that process there. We feel the pharmaceutical

company, with proper research done on some of these drugs, it is incumbent upon

the pharmaceutical company to have a certain right to ensure that these are

safe, and the federal government has a right to ensure it before they approve

these.

Many of these are in the process there. There was no final conclusion reached

across the country on this, but we are working with the federal government and

calling on them to move forward, in line with the pharmaceutical companies, to

ensure that they do meet the necessary standards there, and then our Province

and the rest of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

that happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I say to the minister, all Canadian provinces, with the exception of

ours, provide and recognize the situation and have implemented equitable

programs for their residents. The Romanow plan called for coverage to begin when

drugs cost more than $1,500 per year, and the Senate Committee on Social Affairs

talked about people needing help once their drug needs exceed 3 per cent of

their annual income.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, when we talk about fairness and

equity across this country, we demand that this Province be treated equitably

and fairly. Doesn't the minister think that the residents of the Province

should receive the same treatment when it comes to the cost of drugs associated

with MS, Alzheimer's, and other such diseases?

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

Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Different jurisdictions across the country fund different drugs at different

levels. I will comment on one of the ones you asked there. I will use Alzheimer's,

for example. There are several provinces in the country that have added that on

the list, and they have all added it during election time. In the AD2000 study

that is published in Lancet 2004 , it indicates, post the decision by the

medical advisory group, after the decision it showed that research shows that it

does not delay institutionalization and there is minimal, if any, benefit from

it.

Memorial University of Epidemiology, just recently, in 2004, indicated they

substantiated those results, that it doesn't delay institutionalization, and

many of them put it on a political basis just before elections there. We want to

do it on sound clinical advice from medical professionals in any of these. If

the member has a comment on any other specific one, I will be only delighted to

answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: The member certainly does, I say to the minister. How about

the MS, that has been proven? You talked a lot about the ones that haven't

been, but I want to say: Is the minister's response that we have to wait for

an election in this Province before government is going to bring in such a

program? Because, if it is, that is another two-and-a-half years that people in

this Province will have to go without.

I say to the minister, there are future health care savings to the Province

if people get the drugs that they require now to correct their disabilities,

rather than ending up in institutions a few years down the road.

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

Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This year's Budget is proof of that. There is no election this year and we

added twenty-five new drugs to the list this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that is true and that is great news for some seniors

and people on income support, but I say to the minister, you can add whatever

drugs you want to the provincial plan, many people, the vast majority in this

Province, will not be able to access them.

I say to the minister, when is he going to bring in a plan that will help the

people who get up each day, go to work, work hard all year long, but do not have

a drug plan because it is not provided by their employer and cannot afford to

buy the drugs that they need to treat their illnesses?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have two programs in place. One is for seniors who meet the guaranteed

income supplement, and we have a plan in place for people on income support.

Also, for low income people who are not on either one of these, who submitted a

financial statement that their means is not sufficient to be able to access

those drugs because of cost, there is also provision to be able to deal with

those people, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I want to present a petition today on behalf of the fish harvesters and plant

workers of this Province with regards to the plant production quotas.

Mr. Speaker, we hear so much about the Dunne report, I just want to reference

a portion of it. I do not know if I have the right documentation here, and I am

sure I can be corrected from the other side, but what Mr. Dunne started off to

say, with regards to raw material sharing, he said that this was a review and

assessment. He would include brief descriptions of such a system. He would have

a

summary of raw material sharing initiatives that was in this Province, and he

and I do not know, maybe I am hearing all of this wrong. He said: There will not

be any attempt in this report to actually design such a sharing system. That

would have to involve a collaborative and focused effort between industry and

government.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing in this House, day in and day out, that what we

are hearing and that has been put before the fish harvesters of this Province,

is what they want and what was said in the Dunne report. Maybe this

Chapter 7, I

have here, is not the correct one. I do not know, but I can tell you, it is the

copy that we have and that is what is stated very clearly in that report.

Mr. Speaker, the harvesters of this Province are very concerned about this. I

think we have seen that day in and day out. I hope the end will soon come to it,

so that they can get back on the water and answer to the request of the plant

workers so that they can get back to work. I am sure every member, on all sides

of this House, are getting the same message.

Mr. Speaker, we all get e-mails with regards to this system. They are talking

about that they have major concerns, that once all the small processors and the

buyers are swallowed up by the big enterprises, the underutilized species that

they have and try to sell, they will not have anyone to take them from them.

They also have concerns, Mr. Speaker, about losing their freedom of choice: What

to sell, where to sell it, how much they charge for it, and when and under what

conditions they can go fishing. They have major concerns with it, Mr. Speaker.

In the paper that I reference, on several occasions, are frequently asked

questions. One of the questions says: Isn't the raw material share really a

community quota? The response was: No, this is not a community quota. The raw

material purchasing cap will be assigned to each individual fish processing

facility, not to the community. I have to say to the minister and to the

Premier: That is true, it is not a community quota, neither is it a plant quota.

Each of those harvesters have their individual quotas. It is theirs. Here we are

trying to say that it is going to be a plant quota. Mr. Speaker, those people

have major concerns about it, and we hear it day in and day out. I think that it

is time for the minister and the Premier to sit down and do what they stated

they would do in the correspondence that was put out to FFAW, to sit down with

all of the stakeholders at the table.

I know the Premier put a letter forward -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: A short moment to clue up.

MR. BUTLER: To clue up, I just call upon the Minister of Fisheries and

the Premier of this Province to sit down with all of the stakeholders and see

that this problem comes to a successful conclusion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, too, to present a petition on behalf of fish harvesters in the

Province. Rather than read the particular

whereas's, it is enough to say that,

again: whereupon the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon

the House of Assembly to urge government to only impose production quotas if it

is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors, as recommended in the Dunne

report.

Mr. Speaker, the most startling thing, I guess - back to the very roots of

this - is every time the government tries to explain the rationale as to why

they are stubbornly and pigheadedly going ahead, they try to say: We are doing

it on the advise of the recommendations of the Dunne Report. I am sure Mr.

Dunne, whom I know personally very well - I played recreational slow-pitch

softball with him and other things before he retired - he must cringe every time

he hears it. He dealt with the issue, just like those before him, and the

recommendations said: Sure, you should try Resource Materials Sharing if, and

only if, you have the agreement of the harvesters and the processors first.

The Premier finds it very, very funny, Mr. Speaker, as he does with all these

very serious issues, making a big joke of it. Here is the issue: Mr. Dunne

understood the circumstance -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the comment was just made that I was

making light of this. I was having a conversation with the Minister of Finance

who made a remark to me, on a completely different topic, a totally different

topic, and I responded to him with some laughter. That is uncalled for, you know

the difference in that. Again, it is cheap shots again to try and make a point -

MR. GRIMES: Sit down and shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Sit down and shut up! Is that what you just said to me,

sit down and shut up? You are the one who is talking about democracy and the

right to free speech in this House and everything else, and that is the kind of

comment. No wonder you are no longer Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier admits he didn't even have enough interest to be listening to

the presentation of the petition. He was speaking to the Finance Minister and

laughing and joking about another issue. That is how much interest and concern

he has with respect to this particular issue.

The whole point, and the bottom line, is this, after the government received

the Dunne Report and said that they accepted it in principle, we said: That is

okay, because they won't do Resource Materials Sharing unless they do what Mr.

Dunne said, which is go out and get the agreement of the fish harvesters, the

plant workers, the union, and make sure that it is done by consent and

agreement. They even wrote a letter, Mr. Speaker - they wrote a letter! - under

the minister's signature which the Premier said: Oh, that letter doesn't

count, because they didn't get it from me. I didn't promise them that there

would be a consultation before we did it. He says now: I have made up my mind,

they can take it or leave it. The people of the Province remember how everybody

in the Province reacted to a federal minister, Mr. Effort, saying, take it or

leave it, about something else. It is okay for our Premier to say to the

harvesters and the processors: Take it or leave it. I have made up my mind, you

can do what you like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Further Petitions?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise today to present a petition on behalf of the harvesters and

plant workers in this Province who are calling upon government - I don't need

to read it all - to shelve the production quota scheme and only implement it as

Eric Dunne said, if and when it is agreed to by the harvesters and the FFAW in

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, if you listened to the Minister of Fisheries, you would assume

when he talks about the four reports that were commissioned that the four

reports recommended that he proceed with production quotas with crab in the

manner he is proceeding with them. Mr. Speaker, I say nothing could be further

from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact not all the

four reports, only one I think, spoke about crab.

The Vardy report was commissioned and dealt with shrimp and shrimp only, the

other report that was commissioned, with Les Dean and a group of individuals,

was on corporation concentration in the industry, and the final one, Mr. Dunne,

did not recommend that the minister proceed the way in which he is proceeding.

In fact, Mr. Dunne said, the only way it should proceed is if it were agreed to

by all parties, and in particular the harvesters, the FFAW in the Province. So,

for the minister to be out trying to convince the people of the Province that

what he is saying is true, Mr. Speaker, could not be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, let's face it - and I think the minister understands and

realizes this - he is trying now to drive something down the throats of

Newfoundlanders, the vast number of people who are involved in the fishing

industry, that they do not want driven down their throats. They are not going to

accept it, Mr. Speaker. The minister stands, day after day after day, in his

dictatorial way and says that they are going to proceed regardless of what the

people think.

Outside the House of Assembly this afternoon, he talked about: If we did not

implement production quotas, then we would have many more Harbour Bretons on our

hands. Well, Mr. Speaker, again I say, the minister does not have a clue what he

is talking about, because right now the only plant in this Province, or the only

group of plants in this Province that have their own production quotas, is FPI.

What happens once you get your production quota? They will do with it just what

FPI did with it. They will close Harbour Breton and they will take their quota

and they will move it down the road, like they said they were going to move it

down the road to Fortune. What happened? What happens now? What happens in

Fortune? We heard last week of the 200 people who were promised jobs this year,

thirty-eight of them are going to qualify for EI. What happens next year? FPI

has already said there is no commitment to next year, so they will take the

quota from Fortune and they will move it somewhere else.

I say to the minister, that he should get his facts straight. He should

investigate what he is talking about rather than getting on with the tripe that

he is getting on with. I am sure that he does not understand the production

quota scheme or he would not be behaving in the way in which he is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition as well I want to present to the House of Assembly, and it

is from fish harvesters in the Province. I will not read the prayer of the

petition, but it is certainly there for people who want to see it. It is

regarding the recommendations that are being put forward by the government to

have, I guess, production quotas for plants in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have been witnessing here in the last couple of

weeks is complete outrage by harvesters in the fishing industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador, simply because they feel they are being gagged by government

regulations and being told how their industry should operate without their input

being fully considered and taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think government's role in the fishing industry in

this Province is to create chaos and create uprising, but it is role in which

they should be out there in a conciliatory process, meeting with plant workers,

meeting with harvesters, meeting with processors, to try and achieve a balance

in this industry, so that we can move forward. You will not move forward with

the kind of situation that currently exists in this Province today, where you

have a government who has dug their heels in on regulations that are not

acceptable to the industry, and that is exactly what has been happening.

Mr. Speaker, not only that, but this whole situation is surrounded by

contradictory statements from the Minister of Fisheries on a day-to-day basis.

We witnessed that two or three times today, where we had contradictory

information regarding the Raw Materials Sharing allocations with processors in

the Province, where we had contradictory information with regard to arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, how can the harvesters in this Province accept the word of the

minister and the government when everything they hear is contradicted from one

day to the other?

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about a recommendation that was put forward

by a number of authors who have studied the fishery in this Province. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the recommendation in the Dunne report that talked about Raw Material

Sharing, talked about it in the context of having an agreement and a buy-in by

processors and by harvesters and by plant workers. That is not the case, and

that has not occurred. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we have the

chaos we have in our fishing industry in this Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: We have communities, whole communities, in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, that depend upon this fishing industry in order to survive, and

families who depend upon it and plant workers and so on. I think it is

ridiculous that the government is acting in the irresponsible manner that they

are in handling this particular issue, knowing that it is the very lifeblood of

our rural communities in this Province, and knowing full well that a loss of any

fishing season could mean the demise of communities and could mean the

out-migration of even more families. For those reasons (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 1, Mr. Speaker. I move that This House Approves In General The

Budgetary Policy Of The Government, which is commonly referred to as the Budget

Speech.

I believe the Opposition concluded yesterday. I think the Member for Trinity

North is going to take us to the close of the House business today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to be able to stand in

this House and make a few comments about this year's Budget, a Budget that,

when we eventually vote in this House, I will, with a great deal of pride,

support the motion put forward by our minister to pass this Budget this year in

the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things, as I have listened fairly

attentively over the last few days -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is hearing too much noise across the floor of the House. If the

members have conversations, take them outside.

The Chair has recognized the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the excitement created on the

other side of the House when I stand to speak and praise this year's Budget.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard a lot about, as I have sat

and listened to the debate on the Budget, particularly comments from the

opposite side of the House, we have heard individual after individual on the

other side of the House stand and criticize this government for not focussing on

rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today, as an MHA representing a

rural district in this Province, and can tell you that I am proud of this

Budget. I am proud of the initiatives of this government.

When I listen to those people on the opposite side criticize our agenda for

rural Newfoundland, and talk about the lack of an agenda, and asking questions

about where we are going, I could not help but reflect on their period in time.

Actually, I went to the archives. It was in the archives because they had been

forgotten about, forgotten about by the rest of the Province and forgotten about

by members opposite, I say. I pulled out two documents. They are red in colour

and they are talking about jobs and growth strategy. This is the crowd on the

opposite side who now sit in Opposition, who first got elected in 1989 and

finally in September of 1999, ten years later, ten years after they were

elected, finally decided that we had a rural Newfoundland. It is called a

discussion paper. We have a document here called, an Interim Report on a Renewal

Strategy for Jobs and Growth. On the front page we have a former Premier talking

about an initiative undertaken in 1999. Ten years after they got elected they

say: we are going to do something about rural Newfoundland.

Here are a couple of things, Mr. Speaker - and I want to remind members

opposite when they talk about the time it takes to develop a strategy. As I was

reflecting on this document, one of the first things I came across was - here is

one of their strategies. In March of 2000, here is what they said: Government

will give greater priority and emphasis to small business development in its

renewed jobs and growth agenda. Now, powerful words. Do you know what the

reality was? The reality was that when this crowd opposite - in 1993, Mr.

Speaker, the crowd opposite were putting in some $26 million in this Province

into economic development, a provincial investment in the small business for

economic development.

Ten years later, Mr. Speaker, when we formed government last year in 2003,

when we took over the members opposite were only spending a very meagerly $2

million a year on economic development. They had taken a fund of $26 million,

ripped it, depleted it, stripped it and only had $2.6 million a year investing.

Now, when we came in with a Budget - and I commend the Minister of Innovation,

Trade and Rural Development for introducing two new initiatives. When we came in

with a plan to invest in a fund - we are going to maintain a $10 million

investment fund for small business in Newfoundland and Labrador - the members

opposite are critical of it, which is a far cry from their $2 million that they

had in 2003. Yet, they talk about our lack of a strategy for rural Newfoundland.

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

this document.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Now, here is what happens. On page 12 of this same document, in the year

2000, they say that this is one of their priority strategies. They are going to

develop a comprehensive natural gas development strategy which will be prepared

in consultation with major stakeholders. Now, that is powerful stuff. But when I

read this, I rushed right away back to the Library and said this document must

exist somewhere. They obviously did it. They said it was a priority. It must

exist. Do you know what the Legislative Library told me? No, boy, it is not

there. They never did do it. Never did do it.

Then I called my hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources and said:

It is probably an internal document. It must exist somewhere in the department.

I called my colleague and said: Listen, do they have this policy on natural gas?

No, they do not. But, do you know something? When I pick up this year's

document on our Budget, look at what the Minister of Natural Resources is

proposing to do. He is investing $900,000 this year to develop, and here is what

it says: The government has allocated $900,000 to assist government in

positioning the energy sector to provide for long-term benefits for Newfoundland

and Labrador. What do they do? Sneeze at it. It is not enough. We do not have a

strategy. This is what we are doing with it. There is $350,000 going to be used

to support the development of a comprehensive energy plan. Another $250,000 is

going to be used to undertake a strategic assessment of the possible

acquisitions of petroleum interests by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Significant!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, here is the crowd opposite who said, we do not have a

plan. They talk about - now, here is what is interesting, Mr. Speaker. They talk

about not having a strategic plan for rural Newfoundland, as if rural

Newfoundland is some separate creature from the Province as a whole. One of the

things we have to remember is when we develop a strategy for rural Newfoundland,

it is a component of an overall strategy for the fiscal strength of an entire

Province. That is the thing that they have missed. They are asking: Where is

your strategy for rural Newfoundland? It is a component, I say, of a larger

picture. When we talk about getting our fiscal house in order, when we talk

about balancing our Budget, when we talk about bringing our costs in line, these

are all a part of a comprehensive provincial plan which automatically forms a

part of our rural strategy.

What is even more ironic as I read on, Mr. Speaker, here is what they are

talking about here: Government will continue to cut red tape in government. We

heard one of our colleagues talk earlier this week about how he chairs a

committee looking at the reduction of red tape for business in this Province.

The only reason my colleague from Terra Nova is a part of that process and he

chairs a committee is because the members opposite did not do it, Mr. Speaker.

These are the things that we are doing.

I heard the Member for Grand Bank stand the other day, or while sitting in

her seat, criticizing a colleague on this side of the House and asking the

question: Did you realize that 2,000 people moved out of Newfoundland since you

have been in power? Yes, we realize that. We understand that, but did she

realize that we had a net loss of 53,000 from the mid-1990s until the time they

left? She did not realize that. Now that is a net loss, Mr. Speaker, and if I

start reading the out-migration figures, every figure for every year that they

were there (inaudible) a couple of thousand she mentioned the other day. That is

the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about.

When I started looking at this Budget, Mr. Speaker, when I look at this

Budget and look at what it is doing for this Province, a couple of key things.

There are a couple key words, Mr. Speaker, that come to my mind. We see the word

strategy used frequently. I will just highlight it: the Minister of Natural

Resources proposes to deal with a strategy on energy for this Province. I will

tell you another sad commentary, Mr. Speaker. When this crowd opposite left

government in 2003, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment shared with

us recently, that one half of the new entrants to our social assistance roles

are people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. A sad commentary on

poverty in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, what is in this Budget? She

has announced a $200,000 investment in developing a comprehensive strategy to

deal with poverty in this Province, Mr. Speaker. When you start talking about a

rural strategy, we need to have some of those systemic problems dealt with if we

are going to have a strong, vibrant, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot

have a rural economy while we are dealing with the kinds of poverty situations

that were left by the members opposite when they left power. Strategic thinking,

strategic investment.

This Budget is full of strategic investments. We are not adding significantly

to our ongoing operating costs, we are talking about strategic investments. We

are looking at strategically developing a Vessel Replacement Program. A major

issue. Marine transportation, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Island portion of

this Province, we have to remember that we are a marine, we are a Maritime

province. Marine travel is a significant piece of our infrastructure. We are

talking about investing a major piece of work in developing a vessel replacement

strategy. Not only does it address the infrastructure needs, but it deals with

job creation. We are going to be able to build those vessels in this Province.

We have strong, vibrant shipyards in this Province that are capable of building

those new vessels for the Province so we do not have to go out and buy

rustbuckets at the end of their life and spend millions of dollars on their

retrofit. We have a beautiful shipyard in Marystown. We have a great shipyard in

Clarenville. We have the capacity, Mr. Speaker, to build our own ships for our

marine travel.

Another issue, health care, a significant investment, again strategic. I have

to commend the Minister of Health and Community Services and this government for

finally, I say, Mr. Speaker, finally making a commitment to deliver to the

people of Trinity North a new long-term care facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: One of the things - members of this House will remember, I

am certain, and I know the people of Trinity North remember - when the members

opposite were in government, in the March 2000 Budget, they said: We are going

to start the long-term care facility in Clarenville, and here is $500,000 to do

it.

What do they do? They start and stop. Two years went by and not a cent

invested. That is the kind of commitment that they made. It was not until a

month before the election, the Leader of the Opposition runs in town on a bus

and says: I am going to build it now. I am going to have it started tomorrow.

Elect me and I will complete it - but, for two years they invested nothing.

I commend this government for following through on their commitment to have

this long-term care facility built in Clarenville for the residents of Trinity

North. It is not a start-and-stop process, I say, Mr. Speaker. Now we are

starting it and we are going to continue it until it is completed and opened, I

say, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: On the other issue of health care, we are changing focus,

Mr. Speaker. For all too long in this country and in this Province the health

system has focused on a cure, treating people when they are not well. This

government has made a $2.4 million investment in wellness in this Budget, the

largest single investment in a wellness strategy of any government in this

Province, I say, Mr. Speaker; a significant investment in a new initiative and a

new direction for health services. Again, terminology, strategic investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: This is what this Budget is about. You can go down through

it: cultural initiatives, our tourism industry. What are we talking about?

Investment, strategic investment, building on the strengths of a strong culture,

building on the strengths of a Province rich in resources, building on the

strengths of the people who are vibrant, intelligent and well educated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Education, again, strategic investment, a continued

commitment to post-secondary education.

This year, I say, Mr. Speaker, we are going to increase grants to Memorial

University to the tune of $174.4 million, the College of the North Atlantic,

$65.5 million, all strategic investments, I say, Mr. Speaker, in the youth of

this Province, to continue their education so they can continue to drive and

build our economy. Strategic investment, that is the cornerstone and that is the

theme of this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Building an economy.

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

So, those cynics on the opposite side who talk about not having a vision for

rural Newfoundland, I say to them, they need to fully realize what are some of

the strategic pieces -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that the Chair just heard the hon. Member for Bay of Islands

refer to the hon. member opposite as a fool. I ask the member if he would

withdraw that comment.

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

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

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

appreciate your sensitivity.

Looking at the time, Mr. Speaker, there are many more things I could say

about this Budget, and hopefully during this session of the House I will get an

opportunity to speak again about the great things this government is doing, the

tremendous benefit of this Budget to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

adjourn debate for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Before I move the motion to adjourn, I do understand that tomorrow we will be

dealing with government business in terms of the Budget, and that will be done

by consent and by leave. I thank the hon. members opposite for that opportunity.

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

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow,

Wednesday, April 20, at 2:00 o'clock.

All those in agreement, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

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

the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at

2:00 p.m.