May 7, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 18

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our proceedings, I would like to take this opportunity to

welcome to the gallery today fifty-seven Grade 5 students, accompanied by

teachers Ralph Cann and Kelly Burke; chaperones Jerome Bromley, Wade Strickland

and Darlene Owens. The students are from Larkhall Academy in the District of St.

John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today the

Mayor of Grand Le Pierre, Mr. Paul Bolt, in the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order, or what I believe to be a

point of privilege - sorry - and contempt for this House, a situation that

happened in this House yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that yesterday the Member for Port

de Grave, in his statements, not only called into question the integrity of the

Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber West, dealing with conflict of

interest, but in doing so, both directly and indirectly, called into question as

well the integrity of the Commissioner of Members' Interests in his published

findings, because much of what the member had said yesterday and in a press

release he issued today are both non-factual and untrue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer members to a few quotations in terms of

Marleau. For example, officers of this House enjoy certain privileges, as do

members. It says, "Privilege Versus Contempt. Any disregard of or attack on

the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an

outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a

"breach of privilege" and is punishable by the House. There are,

however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which

may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House

also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a

breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the

performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member..." - and I

specifically draw Your Honour's attention to this - "...or Officer of the

House in the discharge of their duties...".

Mr. Speaker, on page 192 of Maingot, the authority on parliamentary privilege

in the House of Commons and in our parliamentary democracy, he quotes Erskine

May who says, "Each House also claims the right to punish actions which,

while not breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against its authority

or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upon

itself, its officers...".

Mr. Speaker, on page 196, just as a final reference, Your Honour, Maingot

says, "...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of

Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes

any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his..." - or her -

" ...parliamentary' duty, or which has a tendence, directly or

indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though

there is no precedent for the offence."

Mr. Speaker, yesterday - and this is the earliest possible time I could raise

it because I just received Hansard, the official transcript of the House - the

Member for Port de Grave said, and I quote, "Madam Speaker, the other

issues comes down to a Statement of Disclosure. Both the Member for Humber West

and myself were elected on the same day, back on June 19, 2001. Each and

everyone of us in this hon. House had to file a Statement of Disclosure.

However, there were months gone by when you could not get any information

pertaining to the Leader of the Opposition." In a release today, he goes

onto say: It is a fact that his initial disclosure of holdings did not get in on

time.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of

Members' Interests today, and he has refuted, categorically, the statements

made by the Member for Port de Grave, and he has refuted them directly to me as

the Opposition House Leader and an officer in this House, and he has indicated

that the Member for Humber West and the Leader of the Opposition has fully

disclosed all of his business holdings on time. He has fully disclosed to the

satisfaction of the act, which this government brought in. They are the ones who

set the standard, Mr. Speaker, and a standard I am happy to say today that the

Leader of the Opposition not only met on time but met every aspect of that act.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, for us to be clear on what is really

taking place here, and I will leave that to Your Honour to judge if a breach of

privilege has occurred. What is clear is that the Member for Port de Grave,

either knowingly - or he ought to know that the statements that he made both

inside this House and outside this House were not true. Had he taken the time to

even phone the Chief Electoral Officer or, for that matter, Mr. Speaker, even

read the published documents that he produced for this House, he would have

found out and knew they were not true.

It is important to note also, Mr. Speaker, that the functions of this

Legislature, and if they are to proceed according to the rules that we apply to

ourselves, then not only members but the independent officers of this House,

which include the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioners of Members'

Interests, their work must be viewed as being complete, that everybody he says

are in compliance, are in compliance.

Mr. Speaker, finally let me say this, because any motion or any motion put

towards you, whether a breach of privilege or contempt, must be held by a

motion, must conclude with a motion. It is simply this: the fact of the matter

that the member has raised the questions that are not true, non-factual and

incorrect is further compounded by the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he is also an

officer of this House. He is the Chair of Committees and on a regular basis sits

in the Chair that you occupy, Mr. Speaker.

Two things must happen. Either the member, if his statements are true both

inside this House and the ones he has made outside, either he is in possession

of information that no one else is, including the Commissioner of Members'

Interests, and if he is he must and he has an obligation, as an Officer of this

House, to bring that information before the Commissioner of Members' Interests

and to show where the Member for Humber West and Leader of the Opposition is not

in compliance. Or, Mr. Speaker, my view is that he has no such information and

that the Commissioner of Members' Interests report not only publicly but to me

today is correct and that the member must stand and unequivocally apologize for

this personal assault both on the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Humber

West, and on the independent officer of this House, namely the Commissioner of

Members' Interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it is often quoted in fact in this House that

privilege is a rare and special thing, and ought not to be brought up very

often. The authorities quote time after time that privilege does not extend much

beyond the freedom of speech. That is the basic privilege that members have in

this House. The authorities, again, quote that to extend upon privilege is

something that members ought to view with a great degree of caution.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member took up a great degree of time quoting Maingot

and various other authorities about what a point of privilege is and what

contempt is, and that it is punishable by the House. That is true, once it is

proven that there is a breach of privilege or that there is contempt.

I would suggest that the hon. member came nowhere close to proving that it

was a point of privilege or even a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman went on to say that a breach of privilege

involves the performance of a parliamentary duty. There was nothing in what the

hon. member said that affected the Leader of the Opposition from performing his

parliamentary duty; not a thing in the world. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,

we had a case in this House some years ago where a person in the Opposition did

not even declare their interest. Did not declare it.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the declaration of our interest that

affects our parliamentary work as such. It is something that we do for

propriety. It is something that we do to make sure that we are performing the

administrative work of government properly, but in terms of the parliamentary

duty there was nothing that the hon. member said or questioned that would affect

the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, as far as saying something was not in on time, that is not a

matter of privilege. Members are permitted to inquire as to whether or talk as

to whether something was on time, and if we find out that was not correct, there

is nothing in the point of privilege about that. It could be raised as something

that was probably not accurate, and the hon. member could apologize for saying

that in the sense that it was probably improper to say so, but nothing to do

with the point of privilege, nothing to do with the point of order.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is simply a disagreement

between two hon. members, and to suggest that it was a breach of privilege, that

it was a contempt of the House, is certainly nowhere close.

I leave the ruling to Your Honour, but again wanting to make the point that

the key with respect to a breach of privilege is to whether or not it affects a

member in performing their parliamentary work, in pursuing their parliamentary

activity, and I would suggest there was nothing in the member's comments on

this side of the House that would affect, that would prevent, a member, the

Leader of the Opposition in particular, from performing his parliamentary duty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the Opposition House

Leader under advisement. I will review the comments by the Member for Port de

Grave and report back to the House.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a moment in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr.

Aiden Maloney, a native of King's Cove, for being named the 2003 Humanitarian

of the Year by the Canadian Red Cross.

For over seven decades, Mr. Speaker, Aiden Maloney has been a tremendously

active volunteer and humanitarian in this Province, and indeed the entire

country. Whether it was collecting donations for the Red Cross in Ramea in the

1940s, or serving as the honourary Consul General of Japan fifty years later,

Mr. Maloney has consistently demonstrated the highest quality of citizenship and

volunteerism.

Among other things, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Maloney has served as Chairperson of the

St. Clare's Mercy Hospital Board. Indeed, he helped establish the St. Clare's

Hospital Foundation. He has collected monies for the Canadian Institute for the

Blind, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Kidney Foundation, the Cancer

Society, and the Heart Foundation. Mr. Maloney is truly an incredible and

devoted volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, Aiden Maloney is a shining example of the generosity, of the

kindness, of the dedication, and of the hard-working nature of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I would like to invite all members of this

House to join me in congratulating this former member of the House for this

outstanding lifetime achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the House of a great event which took place in

Labrador West on the weekend of April 12 and 13.

A group of seniors, all women, up to eighty-nine years of age, were part of

the second annual excursion to the Miron River Outfitting Lodge located in the

wilderness about seventy miles from Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, they began their overnight trip by being bused from Labrador

West to the Ashaunipi River. From there they got aboard a 1957, twelve passenger

Bombardier snowmobile and travelled approximately twenty-five miles to the

lodge. Upon arrival, they were treated to a lunch of rabbit and caribou soup

followed, of course, by a large meal for supper comprised of traditional

Newfoundland and Labrador cuisine.

Mr. Speaker, that evening we had a band brought to the lodge to provide music

for as singalong and a dance with entertainment also being provided by Mrs.

King, one of the seniors, with her accordion, and Cliff Chambers with his

fiddle. During a break in the music, we had a huge bonfire which everyone

thoroughly enjoyed.

Mr. Speaker, seniors in our communities have a great outlook on life and have

a lot to offer our communities. We should all be doing more things in

conjunction with them. Their zest for life, their ability to enjoy themselves,

is contagious and, as organizers, we get as much enjoyment from the weekend as

they do.

I would like to thank Mr. George Pardy of Miron River Outfitting Lodge and

Phil Brake, the owner of the Snowmobile. Without either of these people's

cooperation the weekend would not be possible.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, people from across the Province and people in this

House will be able to see for themselves the great time that was had that

weekend, because we were also accompanied by the film crew from Land and Sea

and the show will be appearing as part of their fall lineup.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the names of the seniors into the record of

the House. They were: Mrs. Joan Stamp, who is President of the Seniors'

Organization in Labrador West; Mrs. Edna Loder, the eldest of the seniors; Mrs.

Myrtle King; Mrs. Marion Walsh; Mrs. Clemmie Parsons; Mrs. Mary Rogers; and Mrs.

Ella Hoffe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to offer

congratulations to the entire production team associated with Etcetera 17 ,

a musical production of students attending Mount Pearl Intermediate and Mount

Pearl Senior High Schools.

Etcetera 17 opened last evening at the Mount Pearl Glacier and runs until

Saturday. It is anticipated that as many as 5,000 friends, family and visitors

will patronize this wonderful celebration of Mount Pearl's youth. In addition,

approximately 2,000 primary and elementary children will attend the matinees.

The fact that as many as 7,000 patrons will attend the various performances

is, in itself, a testament to the show's quality. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Etcetera

17 , with its total cast of 229 students exalts and celebrates the creative

artistry of Mount Pearl's youth.

Special congratulations are due, Mr. Speaker, to the musical director, Carl

Goulding; the production manager, Jackie Goulding; the stage director, Robert

Power; and to all those students who shared their knowledge and expertise in

interpreting the music and choreographing the various selections.

Mr. Speaker, as former administrator at Mount Pearl Junior High, I can attest

to the deserving accolades for which the Etcetera Shows have become known. Carl

Goulding is not just an exceptional teacher and the 2002 recipient of the Prime

Minister's Award for Excellence in Teaching, but a professional who has the

rare ability to capture the imagination of the teenage mind and to inspire them

to strive for personal excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this hon. House will join me in

offering congratulations to the teachers, the entire cast and to the many

volunteers associated with this year's production.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are well known for their tireless efforts in

defending the rights and freedoms of our democratic society. Whether it has been

one of the great world wars, major conflicts or peacekeeping missions, our

people have always been there to do their part.

One of these people is Master Corporal Elaine Careen and I want to take a

moment today to pay tribute to her in her role in defending world peace. Elaine

Careen is from Point Lance, St. Mary's Bay and is the daughter of Neil and

Rosemary. She has been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces since October,

1990. She has served in army units in both Edmonton and Petawawa. In 1998 she

completed a six month tour in Bosnia. Elaine has just finished an eight month

stint in the Persian Gulf fighting the war on terrorism aboard the HMCS

Montreal.

Just before leaving for home from the Gulf of Oman on April 2, the crew of

HMCS Montreal was called on to help save the life of an American sailor who

apparently had suffered a heart attack aboard a U.S. navy troop transport. The

rescue crew were in the air within minutes, and ship medic Master Corporal

Elaine Careen was lowered to the American ship because the helicopter could not

land on the deck crowded with trucks and other gear.

Soon after the rescue, the Montreal began the 18,000 kilometre passage home.

Elaine herself arrived home on Sunday morning to her hometown of Point Lance -

population by the way, of approximately 170 people. Elaine received a heros

welcome when she was met by a motorcade and ushered home to her waiting family

and friends. Her mother, Rosemary, had a great boiler of Sunday dinner waiting

on the stove for her also.

Mr. Speaker, the family of Elaine are proud of her accomplishments. The

people of Point Lance and the Cape Shore area are definitely proud of her

accomplishments also. I am sure that we all are as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in welcoming

Master Corporal Elaine Careen safely home from her latest mission abroad and

congratulating her once again on a job well done and ensure her that her

commitment and dedication to the Canadian Armed Forces is definitely making a

difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the volunteers of the

Pentecostal Senior Citizens Home in Clarke's Beach and also to the

administration for sponsoring a Volunteer Recognition Night on Wednesday, April

30, 2003. I make special reference to staff members: Ms Aldena Hillier-Legge,

Director of Social Work; Mr. Paul Sheppard, Recreation Specialist; and Ms

Christa Greene, Recreation Therapist for their organization of the event,

indeed, to the entire staff of the home who went over and beyond to provide a

beautiful sit-down meal and provide certificate-awards to a core group of

volunteers second to none.

The theme for the night: Volunteers, A Gift of the Community, was highlighted

in the program throughout the night. A resident, Pastor Andrew Palmer, opened

the evening with grace followed by Chaplain, Pastor Eli Petten, with prayer and

song. Official greetings were given by Mayor Elizabeth Moore, Clarke's Beach

and Pastor Moral Bess representing the Board of Directors. Music was supplied by

organist, Goldie Gillingham, Corey Legge and Pastor Mrs. Linda Petten. The

highlight of the evening was a moving rendition of a beautiful hymn by soloist,

Glenda Hussey.

It was during the presentation of certificates and awards, Mr. Speaker, that

the dedication and commitment of the volunteer corp was truly revealed as

individuals and groups from the surrounding area were recognized for their

outstanding service. Without doubt, clearly hundreds and, indeed, thousands of

hours were contributed by those present, hours devoted to brighten the lives of

the residents of this home.

I would certainly ask that the members of this House join with me in

congratulating the volunteer corp of the Pentecostal Senior Citizens Home in

Clarke's Beach for their dedicated service to the seniors of the home and to

thank the staff for organizing an appropriate appreciation night.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, government recognizes the important connection

between healthy nutrition and children's readiness to learn.

The St. John's School Lunch Association has publicly stated that they are

experiencing financial difficulty and will not be able to continue their program

to the end of the June.

The Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education provides an

annual grant of $75,000 to the St. John's School Lunch Association, in three

installments of $25,000 each.

In response to their current financial situation, my department will be

advancing the Association with $50,000 of their annual grant today, which will

alleviate their immediate concern so that there will be no interruption in the

delivery of this important service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Government is also committed, Mr. Speaker, to working with

the Association and its corporate and community partners to help identify

additional sources of funding to resolve this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and I

would say to the minister: What a difference, Minister, a day makes. What a

difference a day makes, because I sat in this House yesterday and the Member for

St. John's West brought forth a private member's resolution to deal with

this situation and it seems like it is no coincidence, I say to the minister,

that is what spurred this government to come forth with the funding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I have to congratulate the St. John's Lunch Association

for what they do, but I ask the minister, what does this mean for next year's

funding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Have they got to depend on $25,000 next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER : By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The School Lunch Association sent a letter to parents a couple of weeks ago

saying they had a $32,000 shortfall. The advancing of money from next year's

budget is not going to help them next year. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, there

are over 70,000 students in Newfoundland and Labrador who do not have a School

Lunch Program at all, and this minister and this government -

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - (inaudible) starting to do something about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform members that earlier today I appeared before the House

of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to express concerns on the

risk that oil pollution poses to our coast and the coastal waters of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our coasts are highly vulnerable to oil pollution. It is estimated that off

the South Coast alone we lose in excess of 100,000 seabirds in oil every year;

100,000 each year. A 1990 federal report has stated clearly that the risk of

marine oil spills is highest in eastern Canada, particularly in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that Placentia Bay is considered by many to be the most likely

place in Canada for a major oil spill.

This risk has only increased over the intervening years, since 1990, with

increased vessel traffic off our coasts. It is estimated that in 2003, there

will be close to 1,000 individual tanker voyages in Placentia Bay alone.

Mr. Speaker, the position of this government is that we need action from our

federal colleagues in several critical areas.

Firstly, prevention of oil entering the sea. To this end, this Province has

been pushing the federal agencies responsible for regulation and protection of

our marine environment. Prevention of illegal discharges can be greatly enhanced

by increased surveillance, enforcement and fines. We need our federal colleagues

to express a willingness to stay the course and see prosecutions through to the

end.

Secondly, I told the committee members that I was not comfortable with the

state of preparedness to respond to a major oil disaster off our coasts. We know

that only 15 per cent of the Canadian Coast Guard's national emergency

response program resources are allocated to the Newfoundland region. In my view,

this is unacceptably low considering the high level of risk. We understand that

the Canadian Coast Guard will soon initiate a risk analysis for oil spills off

our south coast. Yet, this risk analysis will not include a review of the

present oil spill regime response. This current regime has been in place for

over ten years and considering the increased level of vessel activity off our

coasts, it is safe to assume that this regime may no longer represent what is

appropriate. I have called on our federal colleagues to address the issue of

preparedness in the risk analysis. If this is not done, in my view, the risk

analysis exercise is fundamentally flawed.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that our coastal waters falls within the

jurisdiction of the federal government. However, should a spill occur, this oil

will wash up on our shores and then it will be the people and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador who will have to deal with the problem. I urge our

federal colleagues to hear our concerns and to take appropriate action.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good news to hear that the minister had gone before the

review panel. The first word, however, we heard from this government opposing

Ottawa was last year when the former minister took his trip to Spain to see an

oil spill firsthand. It is not only the ships that pass through our waters that

pump their bilges, it also the growing oil industry.

In 1997 I asked questions in this House, in 1998, and again in 1999. We had

the former Premier Tobin who said: the equipment is here in Newfoundland. The

coasts are already covered. We should be happy the work is already done. The

former Minister of Environment, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, the

people of this Province need to know there is, in fact, a great deal of planning

and equipment in place. Those were responses to my questions. Make no wonder the

equipment is not here, Mr. Speaker. The equipment is not here because this

government did not have the foresight to see beyond the tip of their noses the

fact that our oil industry is growing and we need this equipment off our coasts.

This government is to blame for this equipment not being in place in this

Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, and

say we agree that this poses a great danger to the seas around our Province. If

we look at the disasters from around the world, like the Exxon Valdez in Alaska

and the recent disaster in Spain, which, by the way, the former Minister of

Environment travelled with a delegation to look at that firsthand and to put

plans in place to deal with a given situation in this Province should it occur.

We have not heard from the minister or from the department to date, the results

of that trip and what plans they are indeed formulating to deal in the event of

a disaster off our coasts.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, it would be hard for the minister to say

that we rely upon the Coast Guard when we have read in the papers in recent

months and heard on the news about Coast Guard ships being tied up simply

because they do not have the money to put fuel in the boats to sail. So it is an

important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for governments of

this country to enforce and bring in greater regulations and safety conditions

regarding the ships that are sailing in our waters, to make sure they are up to

a suitable standard of safety before they are permitted to bring their ships

into our coastal waters.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: It is not a ministerial statement, this is a member's

statement. I forgot to mention to the Leader of the NDP - I spoke to the

Opposition House Leader - but I am sure the NDP member will not object when he

hears what it is. If I have the permission, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this afternoon to offer condolences to the

family of our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, Mr.

Wiseman, the Member for Topsail, on the death of his mother. Mrs. Florence

Wiseman passed away on May 5, in her eighty-ninth year. The funeral services are

being held this afternoon at St. Alban's Anglican Church in Bonavista North.

Mrs. Wiseman was a dear friend. She was a great lady, dynamic, energetic and

compassionate, and overall a great citizen of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members and offer the

Wiseman family our condolences and our sympathy.

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

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

I know for all members in the House who have lost a parent, a mother or

father - I know, I lost my own father some years ago - it is not an easy time,

no matter what the age. Certainly, we want to be associated with the Government

House Leader's comments and offer, on behalf of the Official Opposition, our

sincere condolences to the family, and in particular to the Member for Topsail,

for the loss that he and his family have just experienced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Government House Leader for bringing it to the attention

of the House and giving us all an opportunity to join in offering our

condolences to the Member for Topsail and his family for the loss of his mother.

As the Opposition House Leader has said, it is a very sad moment when one loses

a parent, and we all feel for the Member for Topsail on this occasion.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to be clear that, this being Wednesday, Private

Members' Day, obviously when the clock strikes 3 o'clock we must proceed to

private members' business. I just want to know, from the Government House

Leader, to ensure that Question Period has its full thirty minutes, if we can

provide leave to ensure that when Question Period starts that it concludes

thirty minutes later, even though it is after 3 o'clock, and then we can

proceed right to private members' business immediately following that?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) dare deprive the Opposition or the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador these exciting thirty minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In his various interviews over the last twenty-four hours, the Premier has

implied that I was breaking the law by speaking with the fishermen in Minister

Byrne's office, in order to obtain their views.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Member for

Baie Verte, the Member for St. Barbe, and I did not illegally enter the

premises. I, in fact, spoke with the federal minister's officials who were

there at the time and approved of our presence.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice and Attorney General please tell

this House if he feels that I, or fellow MHAs, broke the law by speaking with

fishermen in Minister Byrne's office, with the approval of the minister's

officials and without being told at any time by those in charge that I was

trespassing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. It is not a legal question. It is a political

question. Mr. Speaker, the point that I made, I did not suggest and have never

suggested - and I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, through

you, that he might check his facts before he asks the questions. I have never

ever suggested that any politician has broken the law. What I was saying is

that, by being in the presence of people - and maybe he might, as a lawyer,

suggest whether or not these particular people could be charged with some kind

of offence by being in an office when they are not supposed to be there, by

tearing the doors off the front of buildings, by breaking down flag poles, are

these things legal or illegal.

The point that I have been making is, by being in their presence and wanting

to suggest by being there that he is supportive of them, he is indeed condoning

and sanctioning an illegal action that others are undertaking. I did not say

anything about the action of the members themselves. I said their presence,

their very presence, suggests that they see no problem, no difficulty, with the

action being taken.

Now, to use his own questioning: Is that a fact, yes or no? Is the presence

there intended to condone the action and support it, or is he down there

pretending to support it and suggesting at the same time that they should leave

the building because it is illegal and improper? You cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has, in fact, implied that I was breaking the law and has, in

fact, stated that I broke the law. Mr. Speaker, the Premier now has also stated

that by being there, then, we are therefore condoning the tearing down of doors

and other destruction in that particular premises. If that is the case, and we

are perceived as condoning vandalism and the breaking down of doors, can you

tell me if your Minister of Justice who was there the following day, your

Minister of Fisheries who are there the following day, the former Minister of

Fisheries who was there the following day, and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, if they also condone law-breaking and vandalism and interference with

the administration of justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Leader of the

Opposition is trying to be too cute by half. The question is this, and the whole

point is this: I have implied nothing. I have stated quite clearly for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador where I stand. The question is: What about

the Leader of the Opposition? Where does he stand on this issue, Mr. Speaker?

You cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: You cannot try, Mr. Speaker, no one can try to confuse

the issue by talking about interference with the judicial system or interference

with justice. There have been no instructions given. Those people who have the

responsibility to enforce the law have made their own decisions in Newfoundland

and Labrador the same as they have made their own decisions in New Brunswick, as

to whether or not they would go out and lay charges against people who have done

some things, that the Leader of the Opposition, as a lawyer, would know - that

if someone wanted to lay some charges there is certainly a basis for laying a

charge when somebody forcibly tears the doors off a public building that they do

not own. Mr. Speaker, he would surely suggest that someone could lay a charge

about that, if they chose to do so. No one has decided to lay any charges. So

you cannot have it both ways. You cannot walk down and stand with the people. My

colleague stood with the people because we support them and we tell the whole

world that we support them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We do not try to fudge it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: We do not try to excuse it. We support them. Does he

support them or not, Mr. Speaker? That is the question everyone would like to

have answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Your colleague, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney

General for the Province supports tearing the doors off buildings? That is what

you just said, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is exactly what you said. It would be interesting to

hear what the Minister of Justice has to say about that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in trying to make the cod closure his election issue,

the Premier encouraged individuals to break the law by telling them he would

shield them from prosecution. He said: we are not going to be facilitating

federal officials, prosecuting people who break the law. Mr. Speaker, I was in

fact very pleased yesterday to hear the Minister of Justice -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - do what he had to do and rein in that Premier during

Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to question.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Justice said, and I quote, "As the

Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, you take no directions from the Premier when it

comes to the proper administration of law and justice in this Province."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney General, if

the Premier cannot instruct the Minster of Justice and the Attorney General not

to facilitate federal officials from prosecuting people who break the law then

how can the government protect them from prosecution as the Premier suggests?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and I will not try

to politicize it as some people are trying to do. It does require some

commentary.

First of all, I think the Leader of the Opposition is well aware under Beauchesne

- I believe that is the rules that we follow here - clauses 408 and 410, on page

120 and 122, that you do not ask a question in Question Period which requires a

legal opinion. That is the first thing, which is definitely what his first

question off the mark asked. So, if we are going to get into legal niceties

maybe he should follow the rules of the House too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the concerns here,

one the problems we have here is somewhere or another the Leader of the

Opposition missed this parade. He wanted to be in front of the parade but he

missed the parade; and because of legal niceties that he is now trying to warp,

he is trying to take this issue down another side road, but the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador will not stand for it. The fishery issue is the issue

right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: The fishery issue is the issue in this Province right now.

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition does not appreciate it or want to admit, that

it is owned - as someone said this morning in the media - by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.

MR. PARSONS: I cannot answer for that, but I can answer when it comes to

the Attorney General's responsibilities. I will, as the Attorney General,

uphold the laws and the administration of justice in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I refer the hon. minister to Beauchesne 410.(5), "The primary

purpose of the Question Period is the seeking of information and calling the

Government to account." That is what it is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: We do not get answers to the questions. That is the

problem, Mr. Speaker. That has been going on for two years.

Mr. Speaker, last night in an interview Premier Grimes said - and I quote him

in reference to the fishermen: Whatever actions they will take, we will support

them, we will defend them and we will try to protect them. In reference to the

actions of government, he said: Whatever it takes, we will do.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, in light of the

Premier's public statement, quote: To do whatever it takes. Will he, as

Attorney General, condone lawbreaking and impede federal prosecutions as is

suggested by the Premier? Will the Attorney General support the Premier breaking

the law if the Premier feels that is what it takes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the Leader of the Opposition might want to go back to an ad from a

law firm that he is affiliated with that says: Who will fight for you? And what

will we fight over, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you, clearly this, I stand by the

words that I said, and this government stands by the words, that we will support

and defend and try to protect these people in every way we can, because our

support for them is not equivocal, it is not limited; we are not going to

support them so far.

The Leader of the Opposition is willing to condone and support certain

actions that can be described and are, in fact, illegal. When people go out and

tear a door off a public building, he is willing to stand up in their presence,

and by his very presence, saying: That is okay. I condone that. I support you so

far, but if you go out and take a fish, I cannot support you in taking a fish.

So you cannot suggest that it is the rule of law, but say this law is okay to

be broken, and I support that; but this law, I cannot support breaking that one.

I do not support and condone breaking any laws, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I never advised in council, but I can tell you this, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to now conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - that unlike the Leader of the Opposition this morning

when asked by a national radio reporter: So you wouldn't agree with this

protest fishery then? The answer from the Leader of the Opposition: No, I am not

saying I don't agree with a protest fishery (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: No. So what is the answer, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What he neglected to read was that if I was Premier of this Province, I would

never condone law-breaking in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: And I will not condone it just to get elected like you

will! Half sentences!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have another question for the Attorney General. It will

be interesting to see whether he stands on his feet and answers this question.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice stated quite properly when he

accepted the office of Attorney General he "...swore to uphold the laws of

the land...", and, "That will done." He also said, "That is

part of the job and the day that I cease to be prepared to do that I shall leave

this job." I commend him for that responsible and correct statement because

that is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, would the Attorney General support the position of his Premier,

if the Premier attempts to interfere or obstruct or prevent federal Justice

officials from prosecuting illegal activity? If, in fact, the Premier takes that

action, would you leave your job as you said and will you step down from

Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I refer hon. members to Beauchesne when phrasing questions and

asking questions in the House, questions ought not to be hypothetical and I fear

that the hon. member now is getting into a hypothetical situation and he ought

not to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated that he will

interfere with federal officials in prosecuting illegal activity. If he does

that, will you step down from your position as Minister of Justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the Leader of the

Opposition today so concerned about the fishermen that he supported by standing

in their presence last week, and with his very presence condoning the actions

they had taken to date, several of which he would know, as a lawyer, were

against the law if the law was fully applied.

Mr. Speaker, the issues are this: What does he want to do to help support the

government in getting the issue addressed properly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He says he wants to have the decision reversed. So do we.

One of the things that the fishermen themselves say they are going to do is

protest fish. When he was asked by the reporter: So, you would not agree with

this protest fishery then? Now, being onside and being supportive: So, you would

not agree with this protest fishery? No, I am not saying I do not agree with a

protest fishery. So, what is the message? The opposite of not disagreeing means

you agree. What he is saying to the reporter on the national news is: I agree

with a protest fishery.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want a protest fishery. We want the decision changed.

We want a legal fishery in place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We want the EI benefits extended now. We want a proper

buyout option. We want early retirement. That is what this debate is about, Mr.

Speaker, but if wants to carry the mail for the federal government today or

somebody else, go ahead and do it because you cannot stand with everybody. You

must stand with somebody. I stand with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are

being done an injustice today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible), that is what you stand for, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not about a debate, this is about trying to find an election issue.

You are fooling nobody on that one, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: While he has been trying to make political hay out of this

issue on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, he neglected to advise

the fishermen and women of this Province of the true consequences of their

actions.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Justice another question. He has got

himself in a tight spot and he doesn't want to get on his feet. Lets ask him a

very straightforward question so he can answer it.

Can the Minister of Justice please explain to the fishermen of Newfoundland

and Labrador what will happen if they are convicted of illegal fishing? Will

they lose their boats, will they lose their licenses, will they lose their gear,

will they receive a criminal record, will they end up with fines or could they

end up in jail at the end of the day? Because those are the consequences of what

that government is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty clear, I think, to anyone listening in and watching today, that

we have one person here who has given up and assumes that this decision will not

be reversed, and that is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. We haven't

given up. The fish harvesters and plant workers and the people impacted in the

communities haven't given up.

His strong words, which I stated before, his strong words and his last

message in Ottawa was: Mr. Minister, understand one thing - this is what he

said, Mr. Speaker - understand one thing on behalf of all of us in Newfoundland

and Labrador's all-party committee, the one thing - and this was the last

message he left and I was proud that he did - the one thing that is not

acceptable is a closure of the fishery. We all applauded him, Mr. Speaker. The

one thing that is not acceptable is a closure of the fishery.

Now, he is back saying: The decision is final. These people, if they fish, it

is obviously going to be illegal. This is the person who has given up, instead

of standing with us like he suggested he was doing in a Private Member's

Motion last Wednesday, one week ago, after having given up and coming back

onside. The first part of the resolution was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - the decision should be reversed. Today, he is after

giving up. We are still working to find a solution. We are not interested in an

election, we are interested in solving a problem in the best interests of our

people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, in September of 2002, the Minister of Health and Community

Services released the Strategic Health Plan wherein the minister acknowledged,

and I quote directly from the plan: A new strategy is needed for services in the

area of psychiatry and mental health. It goes on to say: It is well recognized

that the existing level of service is underdeveloped.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the people of this Province today his

action plan for mental health services? I ask him not to simply say that he is

waiting for the results of the two most recent judicial enquiries, but tell us

exactly what his plans are for mental health services in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I will try and respond above the ramble opposite

coming from the Leader of the Opposition. Maybe, if he is interested - it is a

very serious question - maybe he should listen to the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Not having a great day.

To the hon. member opposite, I would say I was very pleased to see, not that

long ago when I released the Strategic Health Plan for the people of this

Province, the hon. member opposite was pooh-poohing and saying, what a waste of

time, what a silly document. There is nothing here but motherhood stuff.

In fact, since the document has been released, as I stated in this House

yesterday, all of the health care providers in this Province have applauded the

document that we produced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will go further. Just within the last

week, I had a telephone conversation with a physician, a Newfoundland physician

from this Province, who is presently working in the U.S.A., who contacted me on

another matter and said to me how proud she was to see a document produced by

her government in Newfoundland, a document that could be held up as a model for

everyone in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: It is good to see that the hon. member opposite is finally

coming to recognize that it is an important document.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the question that is raised is important and, as

mentioned, we are moving forward to deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, when we did the Estimates, the hon. member asked the same

question. I said to him then, the strategy that is being produced, we are

awaiting the outcome of the two judicial enquiries that are ongoing and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. SMITH: - surely, he would not suggest that the information that will

be produced we should not consider in finalizing our strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that if the

physician he spoke to in the U.S. was so proud of Newfoundland and Labrador,

they would be still here in the Province practicing instead of being driven out

by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in September of 2001, the minister

released a report and the report was entitled: Valuing Mental Health. The

minister's own department described the paper as: A Framework to Support the

Development of a Provincial Mental Health Policy for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, within that same report, further acknowledged that

the report represents the view and efforts of a large number of groups and

individuals. It goes on to say it is a broad-based consultation process that was

initiated in 1999.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Can the minister tell the people

of the Province why - now here we are in May of 2003, almost two years past the

release of that report, and almost four years past the consultation process -

why is it that we are sitting here now and still do not have a good mental

health strategy for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say to the people of the Province

that if all it took - if it were just rhetoric, then the hon. member opposite,

it would not take him too long to produce a document that would be acceptable to

everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the tactics yesterday,

that the hon. members opposite were standing up and decrying, as we heard here

today, some of the comments that were being made on this side of the House.

In fact yesterday in debate, in trying to speak to the very important issues

related to health care, and as the minister with responsibility for that, the

hon. member opposite standing on a point of order and taking away time that I

had allocated to me to have an opportunity as a member in this House. So, if you

want to talk about infringing on privileges, then I would say to hon. members

opposite to look at that and allow every hon. member the opportunity to

participate in debate. Quite frankly, I did not appreciate yesterday not having

the opportunity to conclude my remarks, because the hon. member not only

precluded that but also went on to say they we would not grant leave to

continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to the issue at hand - and it is a very important

issue, and it is an issue that we have been proceeding with for some time, as

the hon. member has mentioned, and doing it, as we have as a government, in

consultation with all of the health care providers and all of the interest

groups that are out there.

Mr. Speaker, we do not operate in a vacuum. We work with everyone who has an

interest and a position in this. We work closely with them and will in time

develop a strategy that I am sure will be accepted by everyone in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that any time he

stands in this House and makes statements that are not accurate, then I will

stand on a point of order any time to correct that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, last year, in September, the Minister of

Health stood in this House and said that by the end of 2002-2003 his department

would have completed a review of the current Mental Health Act. I ask the

minister if he would now table that evaluation for the review of this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this minister and this government have tried to

take counsel and to receive information from wherever and whenever it is

available. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the hon.

member would suggest that opportunities are not provided.

Again, I take exception to his comment that I was stating and presenting

evidence yesterday in debate that was not accurate, but I will have an

opportunity to speak to that later on. Quite frankly, I will be quite pleased to

lay out the position with regard to the MRI to everyone in this Province because

I think they need to know where that hon. member stood and the Leader of the

Opposition stood, and everyone opposite.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue at hand, it is quite strange to think that he is

saying that there is not the opportunity here for a dialogue and the exchange of

information. Just today, I had arranged with the officials of my department to

hold a briefing for that hon. member, to brief him on a piece of legislation

coming before this House dealing with privacy. That is the openness of this

government. That is the commitment of the government, to try and do what is

right for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

We, in the New Democratic Party, recognize and support and share the

determination of the fishery workers and the fishermen's union to get a

reversal of Minister Thibault's disastrous decision on the cod closure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We also recognize that civil disobedience is a legitimate

form of protest, but it has serious consequences.

Is this Premier saying that the only option now open to the fishery workers

of this Province is a protest fishery? Is he admitting that he has burnt all his

to call him irresponsible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might point out that the actions taken to date by people directly impacted

involved with these decisions have been ones that they have taken of their own

volition, with their own counsel, with the advice of the Fishermen, Food and

Allied Workers, with their legal advice that they give them, because I believe

the member also, as a lawyer, would understand that some of the things that have

been done could have seen charges laid if the rule of law, as the Leader of the

Opposition would say, has to be supreme. If that is the only thing, then some of

these people should already be charged and, in fact, their actions have been

condoned by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the NDP suggests he

supports some of the things that they have done as well.

We have burned no bridges. The Prime Minister of the country yesterday - and

this is important. I have written him, Mr. Speaker, for clarification. I

listened to the question that was asked - and the Leader of the Opposition finds

this very funny, Mr. Speaker. He is over there laughing. He finds this to be a

real chuckle.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, for the people

of the Province.

The Prime Minister was asked a question - it is the Yuk Yuk club, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says. It is the Yuk Yuk club. That is how

seriously he thinks of this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is important to state this. The Prime

Minister was asked: How do you feel about a Premier advising people to break the

law? Now, that was what he was asked. That has never happened, and everybody in

this Legislature knows that. The Leader of the Opposition just laughed again.

That is how seriously he takes the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.

Question Period has ended.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are into Private Members' Day

but I wanted to raise a point of order re Question Period, and assure the

Opposition that we will not allow this to come out of the time.

I wanted to make a point of order because the Leader of the Opposition, I

know, finds some difficulty in adapting to the rules laid down for questions.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, obviously, is of the belief, of

the opinion, that when he submits a question to a minister, that minister must

answer. I want to point out clearly that is not the case, and point out Beauchesne

on page 123, 418, which clearly states, "The Speaker has stated, Hon.

Members may not realize it but questions are actually put to the Government. The

Government decides who will answer.' "

I want to quote another, 419, which says, "The Prime Minister..."

- in this case, naturally, we would substitute the Premier - "...answers

for the government as a whole and is entitled to answer any question relating to

any ministerial portfolio and matter of policy."

Lastly, 420, the same page, "The Speaker has stated, Of course, the

Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister, but it cannot

insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it'."

Mr. Speaker, these are the rules and the Leader of the Opposition ought to

follow them like every other member and ought not to be commenting when the

questions are put to a minister and a different minister answers, or the

Premier. Those are the rules, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House and in my role as

Opposition House Leader, I am not going to leave the remarks of the Government

House Leader unchallenged when they deserve to be challenged.

For example, the Government House Leader forgot to tell everybody in this

House and who may be watching, a number of things along the same rules. The

primary purpose of Question Period is seeking information. That is what the

Leader of the Opposition did. Questions should relate to some matters of

urgency. I believe the questions he asked today about the fishery and

implications of breaking law, in my book, Mr. Speaker, relate to some matter of

urgency.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it says ministers may be questioned only in relation to

their current portfolios. I do not know about anybody else, but certainly the

Leader of the Opposition today, when asking questions to the Minister of Justice

and Attorney General, asked him questions specifically to matters that related

to his portfolio.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. As you did today when you felt that a

question was hypothetical, you reminded members. Other than that, we take

guidance from you and not from the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has ruled on many occasions in the past that

members can direct questions to ministers but it is entirely up to the

government who answers those questions. Questions cannot be directed to minister

who are not responsible for a certain portfolio, but the Premier can answer for

any minister or for any question put to the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day and the Chair will now call

upon the hon. Member for St. John's West, I believe.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was speaking with the Executive Director of the School Lunch Association

today as it pertained to the statement made by the Minister of Youth Services

and Post-Secondary Education. By that Association accepting the $50,000 now, he

will be reducing next year's grant from the government from $75,000 to

$25,000. This will seriously compromise the sustainability of the program.

The School Lunch Association cannot operate the School Lunch Program like

that. What will they have to look forward to next year?

So, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the political posturing by the government and in

the interest of keeping this program going for the 3,000 children who take

advantage of its services, we will proceed with our private member's motion. I

will read the motion:

WHEREAS the School Lunch Association makes available nutritious lunches on a

daily basis to 3,000 school children from twelve schools in the St. John's

metro area, and an average of 1,600 children avail of this service each day; and

WHEREAS it is known that more than 26 per cent of children in this Province

live in poverty and go to school hungry each day; and

WHEREAS it has been demonstrated in several reports, including the report of

the all-party committee of this House, that hungry children do not have the same

capacity to learn, which often results in them dropping out of school and,

thereby, perpetuating the cycle of poverty; and

WHEREAS the School Lunch Association, unless it receives $30,000 funding

immediately, will have to shut down at the end of May, thus depriving these

children from receiving nutritious lunches during the month of June;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

consider providing the necessary funding to allow the School Lunch Association

to carry on for the month of June - the end of the school year.

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward today is a very important one. The

outcome will decide whether a hot lunch will be available in the St. John's

area for approximately 3,000 school children for the month of June. These

lunches will be provided by the School Lunch Association, an association that

has been providing nutritious meals to school children since 1989 when it began

the program in just one school. It has since expanded to twelve schools in the

St. John's Metro area.

The program is available to all children in the schools it serves, which

includes approximately 3,000 children. It does not discriminate. There is no

stigma attached. In order to participate, children submit an envelope. No one

can tell whether there is money inside or not. The suggested price for each meal

is $2.50, but if a child submits an envelope with less than $2.50, or even no

money at all, they still receive a meal. In many cases, this is the best meal

the child will eat that day.

These meals will not be provided, however, if the School Lunch Association

does not receive an infusion of money by the middle of May. This will result in

no lunches for the children who avail of this service for almost the full month

of June, the end of the school year. It is not a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, a

mere $30,000.

The Association knew there would be a struggle financially this year. They

looked at more inexpensive foods, but they could not go that route because they

did not want to compromise the nutrition of the children.

Mr. Speaker, we know, much to our shame, that more than 26 per cent of the

children in this Province live in poverty; and we know that many children go to

school hungry each day; and we know that children who are hungry do not have the

same capacity to learn.

Teachers in the schools that participate in the School Lunch Program report

that in-class behaviour, attention span, and overall attendance has improved

since the program began.

Yesterday in the lobby of the Confederation Building, the Minister of

Education chaired a presentation by Kids Eat Smart, and that fact was

reiterated. Children with nutritious food in their stomachs do much better in

school.

Patricia Canning, in her report, Special Matters - the Report of the Review

of Special Education, was very clear on the effect of poverty as it relates to

the education of children. I quote, "Poverty with its host of attendant

problems, places children at risk of school failure. In this Province, at least

25 per cent of children are growing up in poverty, placing this issue at the

heart of this review of special education. These students are at risk of school

failure for reasons which are far beyond their control. The extraordinarily high

proportion of environmentally at-risk students in our schools has profound

implications for the system's ability to meet the needs of all students.

Without appropriate intervention for economically disadvantaged children before

school and during the school years this province will continue to experience low

levels of achievement and special education will never be able to meet the

demands placed upon it."

Mr. Speaker, the author refers to appropriate interventions. I would suggest,

without putting words in her mouth, that Patricia Canning would certainly

consider the School Lunch Program for the month of June as one such appropriate

intervention.

In the motion I have referred to hunger being a deterrent to learning,

resulting in dropouts, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Let me once

again refer to Patricia Canning's report and I quote, "Low socio-economic

status is strongly and consistently associated with poor academic performance

and, in turn, students who perform poorly in school, many of whom will

eventually drop out, will have difficulty changing their economic status and

that of their children."

The report also refers to a five-year study of 4,500 children. The results

showed that, "By the time most of these children in the study had entered

grade five, close to one half of those in the lowest socio-economic category

were in special education classes or behind one or two grade levels."

In the report Ms Canning also refers to an

article by Jackson, 1995; and

Saleh, 1991, which argues that, "Children who are economically and socially

disadvantaged and experience such things as inadequate nutrition and housing are

also at risk of developing behaviour problems.

Mr. Speaker, these are not my words. They are the words of the experts and

they clearly demonstrate the results of the lack of proper nutrition.

Is this what we want for our children? Is this what is espoused in the

so-called bold new Strategic Social Plan? It is bad enough that this Province

bears the shame of having the highest percentage of child poverty and - as is

shown in the social audit - the percentage of child poverty is rising. Mr.

Speaker, that is bad enough, but when we are in a situation where the government

can clearly do something to solve at least a portion of the problem - and I

would suggest, to appropriately intervene - then it should jump at the

opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, it can do so for such a small price, $30,000.

We all know of instances recently where money is being spent a lot less wisely.

Mr. Speaker, I place this motion before the House of Assembly today because I

feel it is a very serious matter. The future of our Province is our children.

Our children are the responsibility of their parents, the schools and the larger

community. That larger community is us. If this Province is to do well, its

children must be educated. It is incumbent on all of us to see that all of our

children receive the benefit of a good education, and that includes the children

who live in poverty.

I will quote again, as I have done several times in this House of Assembly,

what one child said to me when I visited a school a few years ago, because the

message is as profound today as it was then. When asked what poverty meant, the

child replied: It means pretending you forgot your lunch.

Madam Speaker, if the School Lunch Association has to close its doors at the

end of this month, how many children will have to pretend they forgot their

lunch during the month of June?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and

Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise in this House and respond to the resolution at

hand.

Madam Speaker, there are many things surrounding this resolution that we

should look at and, I think, two issues are apparent today. Number one is the

immediate situation. It has been reported in the media that there will be a

crises, more or less, that the School Lunch Program will come to an end very

shortly, at the end of May, unless some funds are injected into that program.

So, I guess, what we need to look at first is the immediate reaction. How best

can we look at this problem and make sure that this program is not interrupted?

Well, what the general public may not know is the commitment by this government

to the School Lunch Program in this Province.

I would like to speak on the department's perspective, Youth Services and

Post-Secondary Education. For many years we have been providing to the St. John's

School Lunch Association $75,000 from my department, but that is not the only

area of donations for the School Lunch Association Program. The School Lunch

Association Program in St. John's obtains funds from corporations and

organizations. Apart from that, the Department of Human Resources and Employment

part of government funds the Kids Eat Smart Foundation Program $500,000 every

year. In recent days, they have held discussions with the St. John's School

Lunch Association, and they have decided, on they own, to provide $10,000 extra

to the St. John's School Lunch Association to assist them in this manner.

Madam Speaker, the $75,000 annual grant that comes from this department is

always taken in three installments, and they are scattered throughout the school

year. It would be a solution at hand and very easy, one that we can all see

today, if they were able to access that money now because now is when they need

it. So, I have instructed my officials today to process a cheque in the amount

$50,000, part of their $75,000 annual grant. That will be given to the St. John's

School Lunch Association. So there is no need for any child, who now accesses

this service, to do without and they can have no interruption in this service to

the end of this school year.

Now, we also know that there is a long-term financing problem with this

service, and they have made that known. But, what we do not know is the fact

that there are several aspects to this service that we need to learn more about.

We want to look at the demand of this service. We want to look at the operation

of this service, and we want to also investigate and see what corporate

donations can be accessed. Because I know - this is a motherhood issue. Anyone

who stands in this House and talks about a school lunch program understands that

the most important people in our society are the ones who generally cannot speak

for themselves. We all want to make sure, every member in this House standing

today, that our children are going to school well-fed and they have a nutritious

diet, and they are ready to learn. That is the key objective for all members in

this House.

This morning I had an opportunity to visit a school on Topsail Road,

Hazelwood Elementary. The Grade 6 class out there are creating an awareness.

They are actually molding soup bowls. They have done this in connection with

Devon House who have helped them. They are selling these soup bowls for $20.

They will be providing at suppertime this evening soup in those soup bowls for

those who want to go and want to buy their bowls.

So there are many aspects of providing nutritious lunches for our children at

school. It differs from the Avalon to all over our wonderful Province. Many

areas in our Province have a breakfast program, a lunch program, or a nutritious

snack program. They are all looked after in various aspects. Some of them are

done through volunteering, and many groups within communities take on projects

such as recycling. Sometimes in schools the students will actually gather their

tins and bottles and so on and they will use the money obtained from recycling

to inject directly into a school lunch program.

Then we have to look at corporations. We all know that the corporate

donorship in this Province is absolutely terrific. Every demand that is out

there corporations offer their support immediately. It was only this morning I

heard on the radio that McDonalds across Newfoundland and Labrador are offering

$25,000 to the flooding situation in Badger. I would know first-hand, having

gone through that flooding situation February 15, individual and corporate

donors are superior in this Province. We are known right straight across the

country for our kindness, compassion and humanity that we express to each other.

So that is being done at a corporate level and an individual level.

Madam Speaker, I see church groups. I see them all over our wonderful

Province wanting to do something for our students in school because there is

nothing worse than to be discriminated in school; knowing that a friend next to

you has a lunch and you do not have one, or a friend next to you might have a

better lunch than you have. So it is nothing worst than to come to school and

feel hungry and not have a proper lunch that you can put out in the cafeteria or

on your school desk and feel like your peers. So it important, and I applaud all

the volunteer groups who are providing nutritious lunches right across our

Province. They are doing a good thing. Me, being a parent, I understand that.

Everyone that is in this House today practically are parents and we all know how

much peer pressure there is on young people today. Not having to deal with an

issue of a school lunch reduces that pressure again.

Madam Speaker, government is responding. We are responding by contributing

$75,000 a year. Is it enough? Well, it is always difficult when you are in

government and say: Is it enough? - because there are so many demands on

government. I believe it is a good contribution towards school lunches in the

St. John's area, when you look at the fact that the Department of Human

Resources and Employment makes their annual commitment of $500,000. I know that

commitment is used all over this Province, so it is not designated exclusively

for the St. John's lunch program.

In recent days they have made a commitment and they have committed to use

$10,000 of that money. In fact, they have agreed to increase that $10,000 to

$20,000, I have heard in recent days, that the Kids Eat Smart Foundation want to

do to help out the St. John's lunch program.

I think the main thing that needs to happen here is addressing the immediate

issue which we have done today. Beyond that, we are committed as a government,

we want to meet with the St. John's school lunch program committee, we want to

look out in the broader community and find out what corporate sponsors are out

there. We all want to do our best to make sure that young people are going to

school well fed and they are ready to learn.

Madam Speaker, what I am saying here is two things. We have looked after the

immediate problem and I commit, as Minister of Post-Secondary Education to

sitting down with this group, working with them, and seeing if we can find a

common resolve here.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I really find it amazing, as I sat and listened to a minister of this

government, the minister responsible for the youth of this Province - she made a

couple of comments that I think are pretty telling. She acknowledged the dilemma

the program finds itself in right now, but she said two things. She said: They

need to learn more about it. We need to learn more about the demand. The demand!

I tell the minister to read her own document, because this speaks to the demand

in this Province. This motion speaks very specifically to a school lunch program

here in St. John's, but the broader picture here is equally applicable.

Whether you are on the Northern Peninsula, in Labrador, Eastern or Western or

Southern Newfoundland and Labrador, anywhere in the Province, the issue is

equally as important.

Let me just point out for the minister, when she talks about demand:

Recently, her colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services released

a report, From The Ground Up, boasting about this new initiative, this strategic

social plan. Just let me read to the House, Madam Speaker, what this report

acknowledges.

The heading is: Children Living In Poverty Is Still A Concern. Although the

number of children under the age of eighteen, living in the Province, has

declined by some 30 per cent since 1991, the number of children living in

poverty has not, Madam Speaker, declined at the same rate.

If the minister wants to know about demand, I suggest that she read her own

government's policies, own government's documents, because very clearly the

statistics tell her that there is a demand, there is a need, that we do have

children living in poverty. We have many of our children living in low income

families. Many of those children are at risk. So, I don't think we need to do

much more analysis of whether we have a demand to support child poverty in this

Province. How much more do we need to study it? How much more statistics do we

need?

Madam Speaker, this government is starting to suffer from paralysis of

analysis. What we need is action, we need some commitment, not just an immediate

response and dump some money at it today because my colleague from St. John's

West raises it in a motion and reacting to our request. What we need is a

proactive approach and an appropriate response.

The other point that the minister raises, before government puts any more

money into this program they want to know what the corporate community is going

to do. I say to the minister, the corporate community is not elected to govern

this Province. The corporate community has, yes, a social conscience. Yes, we

rely on the corporate community to support community initiatives, but the

corporate community should not be replacing programs for which government has a

responsibility.

Very clearly, when we talk about child poverty in this Province, we should be

not the corporate community is going to increase the donations that they give to

the programs, such as the lunch program here and others throughout this

Province.

I think, Madam Speaker, when we look at a government that boasts in its

recent Budget document that the key priorities in this year are going to be to

develop strategies for wellness, one of the key cornerstones of this government's

Strategic Health Plan is a focus on wellness. In fact, when I pick up their

document and read it, their number one goal is to improve health outcomes and

reduce negative impacts of select disease.

Madam Speaker, we have one the highest instances of Type 2 Diabetes in this

country. One of the major influencing factors is diet. Here we are talking about

a government who has created an environment where it has little plans to deal

with an environment that has a significant impact on child poverty.

Child poverty is broader than the issue of dumping money into School Lunch

Programs; it is much bigger than that. One of the things, goal one again. One of

the strategies to deal with that number one goal that they have identified is a

focus on child and youth initiatives.

I say, Madam Speaker, when I look at a government who stands here today and

just prior to the debate on this particular resolution decides that they are

going to inject some $50,000 into the St. John's School Lunch Program, $50,000

of not new money but $50,000 of money they were going to get next year, anyway,

all this has done, it is just once again a knee-jerk reaction to an immediate

problem that may not sound very popular and on the eve of an election want to

ensure that there is no negative press. They do not want people in the media

talking about what this government is not doing, so you squash what is now a

media reaction and a public outcry to what is a shameful condemnation of what

this government's policies have done to lead us to where we are today.

Where we are today, just to repeat, just in case the minister was not

listening, just to repeat where we are today, we are at a point in time when, in

fact, the number of children living in poverty is not declining when the

percentage of our students or youth in the Province is declining by some 30 per

cent since 1991. That is where we are today.

I, too, agree with the minister when she congratulates and commends the large

number of volunteers that exist in this Province who are helping with programs

like the School Lunch Program or the Kids Eat Smart Program. Some of the recent

data that we have seen suggests that there are some 4,000 volunteers around this

Province who are participating in programs like the School Lunch Program, School

Breakfast Program, School Snack Program. These are people, dedicated, committed

citizens of our community, who recognize that there is a gap. There are children

falling through the gaps of social programs in this Province because this

government has not had the vision, the foresight, years ago, to position the

Province today where it is able to respond to and deal with some of the social

problems that we experience. One of the ones that is most condemning of society

is what we are doing to our children.

Child poverty has not improved. We have children going to school hungry. We

have children who are not able to perform at their peak academically because

they are hungry. We have children whose very health is being compromised because

they do not have a nutritious meal in a day. I think that is a sad commentary of

where we are as a society, but I think it is a commentary on the lack of vision

that this government has shown.

In recent weeks, in recent months, government and many ministers have stood

and talked about the Strategic Social Plan, and talked about it being a

government with a great social conscience. I say, Madam Speaker, it is fine to

do that now, but where were they three years ago, five years ago, six years ago,

when they should have had the vision, and they should have been laying the

foundation to bring us to where we should be today, not to where we are today?

The mere fact that we are having to introduce this resolution, the mere fact

that we have 130 or 140 programs around this Province who are trying, at a

volunteer base, at a community level, trying to fill the void that government

has not filled; trying to response to society's responsibility to ensure we

focus our attention, develop programs and services to deal with those people in

our society who are the most vulnerable: children living in poverty, individuals

on low incomes, our aging population, our seniors. These are the people in

society who need the greatest support.

When we talk about social programs, when we talk about a Strategic Social

Plan, when we talk about having a social conscience, these are the people we are

really talking about. These are the people we should be focusing our attention

on.

Many times I have stood in this House and talked about the derelict, this

government's derelictions of their duties in not responding to the needs and

demands and requirements of our aging population.

So on one end of the continuum as you age, this government has clearly

demonstrated that it does not have a vision, has not appropriately responded,

and we have that portion of our society left very vulnerable without the

appropriate services and care.

On the other hand, children, on the other end of the age continuum, children

living in poverty. children relying on community volunteers to scrape, to knock

on doors. We heard the minister stand up a moment ago and commend students in

schools in St. John's who are out collecting drink cans to recycle them, to

put them into School Lunch Program, and I, too, commend children for that kind

of civic pride, and their commitment to other students, but, Madam Speaker, that

is a sad commentary. The children who are in our schools today should be

focusing on their education, positioning themselves for the future, focusing on

developing themselves rather than having to be concerned about collecting drink

bottles and collecting drink cans, to recycle them so their school and their

neighbour's school can have a School Lunch Program. Because they see

themselves, children, some of their friends, and sometimes themselves in a

community, in a school, and they are falling through the cracks. They are not

able to study. Their health is being compromised because clearly we do not have

an appropriate response strategy to deal with some of the social challenges

facing this Province.

Madam Speaker, I could go on for hours talking about this serious crisis that

we have in our Province today; however, there are a number of other colleagues

here who want to speak to this very important resolution being put forward. As

we do, I think you will clearly see that there are gaping holes in this

government's so-called Strategic Social Plan, and it clearly lacks a vision,

and we have not given adequate attention or focusing on our future, and that is

preparing our children for their futures and our futures because they are, in

fact, I suggest, our future. If we do not provide the programs that see those

people's sound development, then we are compromising our future society.

Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to speak to this very important

resolution and I commend my colleague for introducing it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise in support of the motion of the Member for St. John's West in

relation to the School Lunch Association and the need for that program to have

additional funds.

The School Lunch Association used to be called the St. John's School Lunch

Association, so I want it to be clear that, even though it has some programs, I

think twelve schools, some of which are not exactly in St. John's, this is

really only one program within the Province and only deals with one area of the

Province.

I, along with other parents in the jurisdiction of the School Lunch

Association, one of the twelve schools, received a copy of this notice

indicating that they could not continue this program. I want to commend the

Member for St. John's West for bringing this forward, but I do want to say

that the decision of the minister today, announcing, before Question Period, to

advance funds from next year's budget is not going to really help. I say that

in all sincerity. This is not a - it is like giving you an advance on your

cheque, that you may have the money now but you are not going to have it then.

What they have said is that they do not have sufficient funds to have a program

in the month of June, and they will not be able to provide this service, and if

they get the money now and spend it on this, they are going to be in the same

problem next fall when they will be starting the year in a deficit position.

Now, Madam Speaker, the Province does support the School Lunch Association,

this particular program, to the tune of $75, 000 a year, but that amounts to

only 12 per cent of the funds that they have; 12 per cent of a budget of about

$640,000 a year. Half of their money comes from parents and guardians who

contribute to the cost of the meals. Forty per cent of the money comes from

fundraising and donations.

The schools that take advantage of this program are very much privileged, in

one sense, in this Province to have this program. Why do I say that, Madam

Speaker? Because only 15 per cent of the school students in Newfoundland and

Labrador have access to a school meal program. So my children are very lucky.

The children who go to my children's school are very lucky, because they have

the advantage of this program.

I have to commend, while I am at it, the St. John's School Lunch

Association, now the School Lunch Association, for in fact establishing a

stigma-free School Lunch Program way back about fifteen years ago. It was

established at Bishop Field school. That school pioneered this program. They

developed the program. They ensured that it was accessible to all students, and

that no one would actually know who is paying and who is not. Clearly, less than

half of the children who take

part in this program have parents or guardians who

are able to afford to pay the cost. That is the reality of school children

today, even in the St. John's area, which we know from statistics is more

prosperous, has a lower rate of unemployment, a higher per capita income, than

many other areas in the Province. I say that not to say that things are better

in the St. John's area, but to let everybody know that in many parts of the

Province for children going to school it is significantly worse.

So while I support the motion, Madam Speaker, I have offered an amendment to

this motion and to expand the motion beyond the confines of the School Lunch

Association, although their need is urgent and immediate. I certainly recognize

that they need the support because of their shortfall of $32,000, which they

have announced to the parents a couple of weeks ago. I support this motion and I

support the need. I would like to add an amendment, which I have provided to the

Clerk at the Table and Your Honour, as well as the Opposition and the Government

House Leader, to add an additional recital.

Now the recital, in addition to the one about the St. John's School Lunch

Association that says:

WHEREAS it is know that more than 26 percent of children in this Province

live in poverty and go to school hungry each day; and

WHEREAS it has been demonstrated in several reports, including the report of

the all-party committee of this House, that hungry children do not have the same

capacity to learn, which often results in them dropping out of school and,

thereby, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

I would like to add an additional recital which says: AND

WHEREAS the

majority of children throughout the Province do not have access to a school meal

program and will not receive this benefit in the foreseeable future under

existing programs.

And to add an additional resolution at the end: THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER

RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on record as supporting a universal

school meal program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador, supported by

public funds, so that every child in this Province will have the benefit of this

program.

That is my amendment, Madam Speaker, which I hope you will find in order. The

Table has had an opportunity to look it, so I do not know if we need to recess

to do that. I see a nod from Your Honour and from the Clerk, so I will proceed

to speak to the amendment briefly because I know other speakers want to address

this issue.

It is very important, Madam Speaker, to recognize that about 15,000 students

in this Province have access to a school meal program. What that means is, up to

75,000 students do not. That is what it means, Madam Speaker, and I am sure in

your own district, Madam Speaker, you know there are many communities and many

schools where the need is very great for a program of this nature.

The Member for St. John's West has mentioned some reports, but you do not

need reports although they are there. All you need to do is talk to teachers in

the schools in your district, as I am sure we have all done, and you will find

out that this is a serious problem. You will also find out that where there is a

school meal program, the teachers will universally tell you that the performance

in school of certain students has improved considerably because they have access

to this program.

Now, Madam Speaker, I just looked at our Estimates for 2003. Do you know - I

am sure you do, because you study these things every day, I imagine, you read

the Estimates, Madam Speaker - but in the Estimates there is a figure for

teaching services and there is number there of over $400 million that our

Province spends or will spend this year on teacher salaries, $409 million to be

exact - $ 409,753,100 on teacher services, teacher salaries and benefits,

including substitute teachers. That is a considerable amount of money, Madam

Speaker, a considerable amount of money, and we do that because we want to give

our children the best possible education they can get. We want to ensure that

they have at their disposal qualified teachers who know how to teach children

and how to teach programs, and to provide the best curriculum that we can.

Well, Madam Speaker, if we are spending that level of money to support a

teaching program in our schools, shouldn't we also be able to ensure that the

children who are going to these classrooms, who are there to learn, can really

do so? The Member for St. John's West has quoted educational psychologists and

other studies which show children who are not properly nourished, who are hungry

in school, cannot learn properly.

If the statistic, it is hard to get exact statistics about this but we hear

25 per cent to 30 per cent every time a statistic comes out, of children who go

to school hungry, can we not find, must we not find, sufficient funds to ensure

that we have children in school who are not hungry, who are able to learn, so

that the teachers who are there to teach them actually have students who are in

a position to be able to learn?

That is why the amendment is there, Madam Speaker. I think we have been

fighting for years as a party to promote a universal school meal program. We

have had petitions. We have had private members' resolutions. We have speeches

in this House and members from the Official Opposition have supported this on a

number of occasions. I think it is time now, Madam Speaker, that all members of

the House have an opportunity to go on record as supporting a universal school

meal program so that children throughout the Province, not just in places like

St. John's or other places - and there are many other places that have these

programs, because there are some 100 different programs in the Province but we

have over 400 schools. There are a number of programs but it is not a universal

program. There needs to be greater public support. There are many areas in the

Province that cannot come up with the kind of - well, obviously the School Lunch

Program in St. John's raises some $330,000 or $340,000 a year in donations.

That is not possible in many areas of this Province. That is not possible where

we do not have the community capacity, the corporate donors, the other people

who are able to donate to these programs; it is not possible. There needs to be

greater public support and I would like, Madam Speaker, to give everybody in

this House an opportunity to support this resolution and to ensure that we have

a universal school meal program for every school in the Province so that every

child can benefit and every child can go to school without being hungry.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It gives me pleasure today to stand and speak to the motion before the floor,

but before I do I would like to make a few remarks pertaining to some of the

remarks that I have been listening to, and some of the flip-flops from across

the floor that I have heard from the Opposition members in the past four or five

weeks that we have been sitting here. It is not just in the past four or five

weeks; it seems to me it is the last two or three years, that one day the

Opposition stands in the House and say - I have difficulty, too, Madam Speaker,

sitting here and listening to it day after day because I really do not know

where they are coming from. They do so many flip-flops that it is difficult to

follow them on a different day. One day they stand in the House - not one day,

they stand every day and they request more money for roads, more money for

infrastructure, more money for water and sewer, more money for this, more money

for that. Then, the Member for Ferryland, who is over waving his arms at me now,

the Opposition Finance critic, stands every day and tells us how we are spending

like drunken sailors, we are out of control, we cannot keep the Budget under

control, and criticizes us for running deficits and these things.

I really and truly do not know where they are coming from because, when the

Member for St. John's Centre was in Corner Brook just a few short weeks ago,

he and the Leader of the Opposition, and they were talking to a group out there,

it was reported in the paper that they were criticizing government and they

could handle the books better. Their objective when they got in was to run a

balanced Budget, but they were going to do so by trimming the fat and the

bureaucracy. At least that is what was reported in The Western Star . I am

not quoting myself, Madam Speaker, I am quoting an

article in The Western

Star where they talked about how they were going to slash the Budget by

laying off civil servants.

Their new candidate for Topsail District, Ms Marshall, with her Marshall

plan, I heard her in an interview say the same thing, that there is still fat in

the bureaucracy in certain government organizations where you can trim. Then, I

had to sit here and listen to them criticize us about the way we spend.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to say that we

do the best we can with the finances that we have. We realize that there is a

lot of competing interest for the few dollars that we have. We do the best to

handle the Budget, but we are socially conscious, unlike the members opposite,

because we are Liberals, and to be Liberal means to be socially conscious, not

to be conservative because every Conservative government in the world - and I

have said it time and time again - are more interested in balancing budgets and

cutting taxes to the rich than they are about social programs for the poor. That

is unlike us, Madam Speaker, because we believe in helping out those who are in

most need in this Province.

With regard to the motion that we are talking about today, I think there is

some confusion amongst the members opposite in trying to portray the image that

we do not take trying to feed the kids in this Province who are going to school

hungry, that we are not trying to do this. You would be left with the impression

that we have no intention of doing this, but that is so far from the truth here,

Madam Speaker, that it hardly deserves mention.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, there is an umbrella group for all of these

volunteer organizations in the Province who feed our kids on a voluntary basis

each day around the Province, and it is called the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

Yesterday, at lunchtime, I had the opportunity to address not only the

Foundation but a number of people, including some of the members opposite, right

out here in the lobby of Confederation Building. They had this great poster

contest going around the Province, the Foundation did, and it was supported by

Petro Canada, Brookfield Ice Cream and a whole host of other supporters, like

NAPE, who contribute not only to the campaign but they also contribute to the

Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

The Foundation, as I said, is an umbrella group and it was established back

in 1994. The goal behind that, at the time, was to try and provide a healthy

nutritious meal to those kids in the Province who need a healthy nutritious

meal. Obviously, Madam Speaker, if you have a healthy body it leads to a healthy

mind. So, I have to commend the people at the Kids Eat Smart Foundation for the

honourable and great job that they are doing to provide nutritious meals to the

people of our Province. But, as I said, it is an umbrella group. I think when it

was established first and they got out there and starting working - in 1998, for

example, the Foundation helped to establish sixty-one programs around this

Province and fed 6,200 children each day in our schools here in the Province.

That was in 1998. By 2000-2003 they have 137 programs active in our Province. In

four years they went from sixty-one programs feeding 6,200 children to 137

active programs today serving roughly 15,000 students in our Province. That is

commendable, the great work that this Foundation does.

The Kids Eat Smart Foundation are, as I said, the umbrella group for a lot of

organizations in the Province, because as I just said, there are 137 of these.

The Kids Eat Smart Foundation help these organizations - volunteer

organizations, I might say - get up and get running. They also give them some

seed capital. They give them some money to get running. In fact, the School

Lunch Program that we are talking about here today, they receive $10,000 a year

from the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

Along with that, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that my colleague, the

Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education provided to the School

Lunch Program last year and again this year, I think it was $75,000. My

colleague, who is not here today because of a death in his family, which I am

saddened to hear, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, they give

$500,000 each year to the Kids Eat Smart program, and that is distributed to

organizations like the School Lunch Foundation.

It is my understanding as well, Madam Speaker, that the Kids Eat Smart

Foundation have been holding discussions with the School Lunch Program. They are

doing their best to help them over a hump, that they are finding it difficult

this year for some reason to continue up until the end of the school year with

the funding that they have received. I was very pleased today to hear my

colleague, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, announce

that she will advance $50,000, I think it is, of next year's funding toward

the School Lunch Program here in St. John's. That is very admirable of the

minister.

I am not saying that all the money is here that is necessary. Obviously, like

my colleague, the great socialist from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we would like to

see every child in the Province, not just fed when schools are open, but fed

when schools are closed on holidays and summer holidays and Christmas holidays.

It is an admirable thing to do.

We were standing in the lobby yesterday and a number of members opposite - in

fact, the member who has brought the motion before the floor this afternoon was

standing there when Susan Greene, who happens to be the chair of the Kids Eat

Smart Foundation, thanked government yesterday. She said she understood these

are tough financial times for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and for

the government, and it is difficult to find money for all the needs and wishes

and wants of the people of this Province, but she did thank government for the

$500,000 they received this year and commended us for doing so.

Madam Speaker, all I am saying is that we are doing what we can for all those

programs. Obviously, we would like to do more, but I think if you look at it,

this year we have given $585,000 to these various programs. We have done a great

deal, and it was a Liberal government, not a Tory government, that was in for

seventeen years between 1972 and 1989. They were there for seventeen years. They

never mentioned a School Lunch Program, but it seems the minute they get in

Opposition they get a social conscience. They want to feed the poor, or they

want to help the needy, but they did not have that in mind when they occupied

the seat of power for seventeen years during those periods that I just talked

about. It seems that when they get in Opposition they can yell and scream and

ball, and they will ask you for more money one day and the next day they will

stand in the House and criticize you for spending it.

All I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that I would like to commend my colleagues

on this side of the floor for what we are doing to try and help feed school

children around this Province. With that, I will sit down and let somebody else

speak.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Madam Speaker, the resolution that was put forward by my colleague from St.

John's West is very clear.

AND

WHEREAS the School Lunch Association, unless it receives $30,000 funding

immediately, will have to shut down at the end of May, thus depriving these

children from receiving nutritious lunches during the month of June.

What we are asking for, Madam Speaker, is that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador should consider providing the necessary funding to allow the School

Lunch Association to carry on for the month of June, the end of the school year.

Now, it is surprising that this motion was read into the record yesterday and

today we see the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education say

that there are three installments of $25,000 each that government give to the

School Lunch Program. What they are going to do to solve the problem is take

$50,000 from next year's school program and put it into this year's school

program. That is not what this resolution is asking for.

I am going to support this resolution, because what we are asking for in this

resolution is to provide the School Lunch Program with $30,000; not to borrow

from next year, which will put next year's operating program at a $50,000

disadvantage right off the bat. They will have $25,000 to operate, as opposed to

$75,000. Or, if they only need the $30,000, in fact, they will have $45,000 to

operate with next year, which means they are $25,000 in the hole before they

even get started, let alone if they run short.

What we are asking for, Madam Speaker, is that government look at providing

$30,000 to continue the School Lunch Program to the end of this school year.

Thirty thousand dollars is not, when you look at everything that is happening in

the Province - to me it is a lot of money. To the children who go to school

hungry every day, it is a lot of money, but to this government $30,000 is not a

lot of money.

The Premier, if he should decide tomorrow to put off another ad campaign

promoting himself or promoting an issue or promoting something else - the last

ad campaign was $25,000 a week. What we are asking for is $30,000 to prevent

children from going to school hungry.

The statistics show, Madam Speaker, that when children have food to eat, they

learn easier. Their academic marks improve. Their social environment at school

improves, because what is happening with the School Lunch Program is, instead of

just the kids who have money lining up at the cafeteria to eat, and the kids who

do not going outside the back of the school because they cannot go home, there

is no food at home, what is happening is that everybody lines up in the same

lineup and there is no distinguishing between the kid who has money and the kid

who does not. Not only does it ensure that the kids have a good lunch every day,

but when they are not hungry they are also learning better. When they are not

hungry and there is no distinguishing between the kids who have money and the

kids who do not, the social climate at the school improves as well.

When you look at all of those things, $30,000 is not a big investment by

government. This Province has the highest rate of child poverty in the country.

One in four children live in low income households. What we are seeing, as an

example under the Kids Eat Smart program, their statistics show 65 per cent

better attendance because kids are eating breakfast. Now, it is two different

programs - one is breakfast and one is lunch - but the Kids Eat Smart program is

showing, because those kids are having breakfast, that there is a 65 per cent

better attendance, a 73 per cent improved attention span, a 61 per cent improved

academic performance, which means a better education, a better social climate,

and healthier children.

When you look at all of those things, $30,000 is one week less on the next ad

campaign that the Premier puts out. Thirty thousand dollars is one less trip

abroad, but $30,000 means that the kids can go to school knowing that they are

going to have a healthy lunch, knowing that they are going to have a better

attention span, knowing they are going to be able to concentrate better on their

academics, and their academic performance will increase.

Madam Speaker, I support this motion, and I am delighted to see that

government are going to take $50,000 and put it towards the kids School Lunch

Program, but I am not delighted to see that it is not new money. I am not

delighted to see that they are borrowing it from next year's program. That

does not solve anything. This resolution will solve the problem, and that is why

I am supporting this resolution.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Madam Speaker, I stand today to speak to the motion that is

before us here in the House of Assembly. I think anytime we talk about school

children and hunger, I don't guess there is anyone in the House who cannot

relate to the importance of doing whatever we can to deal with that need.

I am so pleased to be part of this government, and my colleague today, the

Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, who stood in the House

and committed to advance $50,000 so that the School Lunch Program can continue

until the end of June, which I understand, Madam Speaker, is exactly what has

been asked of us in the motion that is before us today.

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador should consider providing the necessary funding to allow the School

Lunch Association to carry on for the month of June - the end of the school

year."

That is precisely what my colleague has done in advancing $50,000. I

understand that the number that has been talked about by the School Lunch

Association is in the vicinity of $30,000, so this will indeed allow them to

continue the program to the end of the school year.

We know that there is an issue for the School Lunch Program, Madam Speaker,

and as my colleague has indicated her officials will work very closely with

those of the School Lunch Association to try and identify other sources of

funding so that there will not be a hardship on the School Lunch Association as

a result of advancing $50,000 at this point in time.

The Kids Eat Smart Foundation and the School Lunch Association are two very

worthwhile organizations that are supported by this government. In fact, if you

were to look at the record of this government it is, in fact, the Liberal

government that instituted those programs that started working with the Kids Eat

Smart Foundation and the School Lunch Association, again, because we believed in

what was being asked of us, but again because we also recognize the need to do

everything we can to ensure that children do not go hungry.

We are doing the best that we can with the resources available to us, Mr.

Speaker, and some would say that given the resources available to us we are

probably doing more than we really can afford to do. Having said that, as a

government we have undertaken to do whatever we can to respond to the need in

our Province.

In fact, when I was Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure, I

guess, and the honour of putting $1 million into the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

At one point in time, in 1998, the Department of Human Resources and Employment

committed to provide $1 million to the organization and they entered into a

five-year agreement that ends on July 31, 2003. That $1 million was budgeted by

the Foundation over that five-year period. The additional $1 million that the

Department of Education put in, in March of 2001, did not extend the agreement

but it was an additional $1 million to ensure that