Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements — 26 April 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLV No. 16)
2005-04-26
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 26, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV
No. 16
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we have Member's Statements as follows -
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I left the House early on Thursday to travel to Corner Brook for the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agricultural's Annual General Meeting.
I got back into St. John's on Friday at about 4:50 p.m. and reviewed Hansard,
Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a point, and the point is a serious one. It is
about unparliamentary language in the House. I will read page 525 of Marleau
where it says, "The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing
tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of
offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly
forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in
order."
Mr. Speaker, after reviewing Hansard and have it here this morning, I submit
that the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday afternoon
with respect to the Member for Gander are not only unparliamentary, but are a
personal insult to him and thus to all members, and, as a matter of fact, are
obscene. Let me quote what those words were: "...that the Member for Gander
talks about - goes on the Open Line - and the little job where his nose got
brown first. Everybody knows that phrase in Newfoundland and Labrador. His nose
was brown for awhile, trying to impress the leader, trying to impress the
Premier, to see if he might get considered for Cabinet. It has got to the point
now where the whole head and good part of his body is pretty brown."
He goes on to say - everyone can have a laugh at it if you want, but it is
not so laughable when it is directed at you personally. "The Member for
Gander who got the gum in his hair, with the brown nose and the brown head and
the brown shoulders and the brown rest of it. There is a good bit brown now.
There is one fellow - I heard two expressions lately." The Leader of the
Opposition said, "For him to breathe these days,..." referring to the
Member for Gander, "...he has vents in his heels. It is the only way he can
get a breath of air there is that much brown."
"The Member for Gander got gum in his hair. Guess how it got there? The
Premier swallowed it." Mr. Speaker, he said, "The Premier swallowed
the gum." Great laugh. This is not a bar room. This is not a (inaudible)
house and you are not in New York. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you
are in the House of Assembly and you should stand up and withdraw the remarks
that you made about my colleague, the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The phrase escapes me right now but usually if one has a serious point to
make, I say to the Government House Leader, you do not, yourself, try to be
sarcastic when you make it. That is not to take away from the point that he made
but we can do without the sarcasm as well.
I was not here, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday afternoon myself. I was also on the
West Coast. So I am not familiar with the comments to which the Government House
Leader referred, I was absent as well. I will get an opportunity to read it, I
have a copy right here. I just say to the Government House Leader, unlike
yourself, I have not had an opportunity to read it. I first heard about this now
when you raised the issue. I am not in a position to comment on it, as
Opposition House Leader, but we certainly await the ruling of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair became familiar with the exchange on Friday. I
heard part of it but was in the process of meeting with some officials in my
office during the time when another one of our presiding officers was in the
Chair. I do believe that, as the Government House Leader has said, it is quite
clear in Marleau and Montpetit that, "...the use of offensive, provocative
or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks,
insults and obscene language or words are not in order."
We should note that all members of this House should take it upon themselves
to treat each other with the utmost respect, with the utmost integrity and treat
each other as fellow parliamentarians. Our roles in this public service is not
always an easy role, however, we do believe that it is important in a democracy
that the House maintain proper order and decorum at all times.
On the basis of the fact that I did have occasion to read the exchange, and
am familiar with it, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would
withdraw his comments.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand, according to the rules, that a withdrawal has to be
unequivocal; however, before I do that, I would like to point out, for the
members who were in the House at the time, most members understood the context -
you cannot tell by reading the words - that it was a good
part in jest. Many of
the members opposite were actually laughing out loud.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that the joke was at the expense of the Member for
Gander. He was in the House and did not rise and raise any objection at the
time. The House Leader adjourned the debate, rose no objection at the time.
There were thirty members -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) was done in that manner.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Leader of the Opposition will know that, under the circumstances, I did
permit him to have some sentences there; however, I would ask him at this stage
to withdraw his comments - or accept the Chair's ruling, I should say, and
withdraw his comments immediately.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will do exactly that. Out of respect for the Chair and your ruling, I
withdraw the remarks.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has notice of the following members' statements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has members' statements as follows: The hon. the Member for the
District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of
Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; the hon. the
Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; and the hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista North.
The hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to honour two young athletes in my district who have recently
represented the Province in competition overseas. Mr. Speaker, Jarrett Rose of
Victoria and Gerald Winsor of Harbour Grace are hopefuls for the Newfoundland
and Labrador Provincial Soccer Team that will represent this Province at the
2005 Canada Summer Games in Regina, Saskatchewan, this August.
Gerald Winsor and Jarrett Rose were with twenty-two Newfoundland and Labrador
team hopefuls who were in Manchester, England, for seven days last month. The
trip included participation in exhibition games and observing a professional
soccer game between national teams from England and Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, the coaches of this team used this trip to evaluate the players
and decide who will make the cut for their team in Regina this summer. Mr.
Speaker, both Jarrett and Gerald performed very well on the field during this
trip and we are hopeful they will be selected to represent our Province in
national competition.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating Jarrett Rose of Victoria, Gerald Winsor of Harbour Grace, and
indeed all participants of this soccer team, for their hard work, and in wishing
them the best of luck in their competition at the national level.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rebecca
Russell, a native of Lethbridge, Bonavista Bay, on her outstanding hockey career
which St. Lawrence University Saints in New York State.
Rebecca is about to graduate from St. Lawrence University; but, Mr. Speaker,
in forty-one hockey games this past season, Rebecca had thirty-two goals,
thirty-eight assists, and was the team's leading scorer. Rebecca also led in
power play goals, tied for first for the most short-handed goals, and tied in
game-winning goals. She had the best plus-minus record on her team, with plus
thirty-one. Mr. Speaker, Rebecca Russell was also named a first team all-league
all-star, putting her among the top university hockey players in the United
States. Mr. Speaker, I have just learned, in conversation with her parents, that
an awards banquet was held last evening and Rebecca was named Athlete of the
Year by St. Lawrence University.
Mr. Speaker, upon her graduation, Rebecca will be heading to Calgary this
fall where she will play professional women's hockey with Extreme Oval of the
National Women's Hockey League. She hopes to pursue her masters degree with
aspirations of coaching at the prep school level.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to rise with me today in congratulating
Rebecca Russell on her hockey career and wishing her every success as she
pursues new challenges in the fields of education and athletics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a group of courageous volunteers who give
up their free time to ensure their community remains safe from the threat of
fire.
Mr. Speaker, the St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove Volunteer Fire Department
It was an opportunity for over 150 of the town's citizens, including members
of its municipal council, to honour the volunteer firefighters for another
successful year of keeping its citizens safe from the threat of fire, and for
being ready just in case the unthinkable happens.
Mayor Max Taylor and Chief Earl Lawrence participated in the presentation of
long-service awards to many of the volunteer force. Also, Mr. Speaker, Max
Taylor presented Chief Lawrence with a special award from the Newfoundland and
Labrador Fire Chiefs and Firemen's Association, in recognition of his
twenty-five years of volunteer service to the Volunteer Fire Department.
Mr. Speaker, it is volunteers like these who keep all of our Province's
communities safe. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
all of the dedicated volunteers who volunteer day and night to keep their
communities safe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to
several youth bowling teams who have won the provincial championship in their
division and will be representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the YBC national
championships in British Columbia in early May.
First of all are two teams that bowl out of St. Pat's Lanes, and I have put
these first because St. Pat's is my Alma Mater. The bantam girls' team
consists of Jennifer Hogan, Stephanie Caines, Amber Williams, Ashley Fitzgerald,
Dominique Linehan, and coach Mercedes Escott. The senior girls, also out of St.
Pat's, are Brittany Foley, Andrea Tucker, Sharla Nurse, Kristina Nurse,
Jessica Boundridge, and coach Phil Foley.
The junior boys' champs came out of Plaza Bowl, and the team consisted of
Benjamin Morgan, Jimmy Carrigan, Colin Gosse, Ian Veinott, Taylor Powell, and
coach Ken Noftall. The junior boys' singles champ is Jeff Sturge from Plaza
Bowl, while the bantam boys will be represented in singles competition by Lucas
Tilley from Holiday Lanes.
Mr. Speaker, also representing our Province will be the bantam and senior
boys' teams from Pearl Gate Lanes as well as the junior girls' team from
Corner Brook.
YBC makes a tremendous contribution to the youth of our Province, and I ask
all members of the House to extend thanks to coaches and volunteers and offer
these young players our congratulations and best wishes as they head out to
represent us in British Columbia.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a constituent of mine, Cayley
Linehan of Grand Falls-Windsor, a talented junior high school student who was
awarded first place honours for her project at the nineteenth Annual Central
Newfoundland Regional Science Fair, held April 8, 2005, in Grand Falls-Windsor.
Mr. Speaker, this science fair provided an excellent forum for students all
over the Central area to showcase their talents and innovative ideas, and it was
well represented by students from all over the region.
Cayley is a student from the Grenfell Intermediate School in Grand
Falls-Windsor and she received the "Best of Fair" award for her
project entitled, " Taxes a Pain? Taxus a Cure ".
Cayley will now have the opportunity to represent the Central region when she
attends the Canada-wide science fair to be held in Vancouver, May 15 -23, 2005,
and she will be accompanied by two other winners from Central Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating Cayley Linehan and to wish her continued success as she heads to
the national competition in May.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise and offer
congratulations to Matthew Button. Matthew, a sixteen-year-old Level II student
from Wareham, recently won first place in the Provincial Air Cadet League of
Canada Effective Speaking Contest. The event included cadets from Corner Brook,
St. John's, St. Anthony and Indian Bay. This accomplishment has provided
Matthew with the opportunity to represent our Province in the National Air Cadet
League of Canada Effective Speaking Contest being held in Calgary on June 9,
Matthew has engaged in competitive speaking events since 2002 when, in his
initial competition, he finished first in the Junior Division at the Tri-Service
Speak-Off held at the Cabot Navel Complex. His impressive list of accolades also
includes first place finishes at several regional Lion Speak-offs.
Matthew's oratorical skills are augmented by a self-confidence and
self-awareness that belies his young age.
Matthew has now taken his considerable experience and knowledge of public
speaking and become a mentor to younger cadets in the Indian Bay area. An
Effective Speakers Program employed by the air cadets provides Matthew with the
opportunity to continually improve his own skills while encouraging and
improving the development of others.
We should always take time to acknowledge the young men and women of this
great Province, such as Matthew Button, who give us so much to be proud of. I
ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Matthew and wishing him
the best as he competes in the upcoming National Air Cadet League Effective
Speaking Contest in Calgary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise this afternoon to inform my hon. colleagues of a
positive visit last week to Labrador. Last week I had the honour of presiding in
the opening of the new Supreme Courthouse in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and also
participated in a: Gathering on Labrador Justice, History and Culture, at
Northwest River in Sheshatshiu. I was pleased to have been joined by the hon.
Tom Rideout, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and the MHA for
Lake Melville. I would also like to acknowledge the MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi for attending both the court opening and the gathering.
The new Supreme Courthouse is a result of years of hard work and
collaboration of government, courts and Aboriginal communities in Labrador. The
design of the Judicial Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is unique; incorporating
concepts which reflect openness to Aboriginal traditions, including an
Aboriginal healing room, and circle motif in the courtroom. The circle healing
room will be devoted to the use and application of Aboriginal restorative
justice techniques. The symbolic design encompasses many concepts, which support
the unique cultural aspects of Labrador and the Aboriginal culture, and were
well received by the Aboriginal community.
Mr. Speaker, participants from the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador,
the Canadian Bar Association, the courts and Aboriginal communities exchanged
stories and experiences during the gathering. The discussions were quite
powerful and reflected the unique legal traditions and the challenges of a
mixture of cultures and languages, which continue to exist today.
The events last week were positive and a step toward better understanding
Aboriginal traditions, cultures and people relating to the justice system. The
discussions represent a new beginning, an openness to the rich traditions of the
Aboriginal past and a willingness to include them, to include all voices in a
meaningful and practical way in the day-to-day operations of the justice system.
Mr. Speaker, during the trip, I also had the opportunity to tour the Labrador
Correctional Centre and present certificates recognizing twenty years of service
to correctional officers in that facility. I would like to take this opportunity
to congratulate Paul Boland, Toby Bauld, Sam Flanigan, Kevin Stanley, Steve Pye,
Donald Hallinghan, Maurice Best, as well as Robert Quigley who was presented
with his retirement certificate after twenty-five years of government service. I
would also like to recognize Toby Bauld who received his Commission for being
promoted to the rank of Lieutenant.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. This
is, indeed, a very positive piece of justice infrastructure in our Province. It
is certainly much needed.
I remember three or four years ago being shown some photographs by Justice O'Regan
when he was stationed in the former courthouse in Goose Bay. I guess this one is
a far cry from what were depicted in those photographs. The conditions were not
exactly ideal for a Supreme Court courthouse. There were no council rooms. There
were no adequate facilities for juries; privacy was an issue and so on. So, it
is nice to see that we have a new modern day structure in place. Also, the
design is quite unique. It is just not your typical bricks and mortar here. We
have incorporated into it, by way of design, Aboriginal traditions. We need to
thank some people for doing that and having the foresight to do it. Included
amongst those would be Justice Fowler, who is the Supreme Court Justice there
right now, as well as Chief Justice Green, and we cannot overlook the valuable
contributions of Deputy Minister John Cummings and Assistant Deputy Minister
Chris Curran who played a big role in making sure that this project turned out
to be all that it was.
I am very pleased to have been the minister who approved the project in the
first place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: It is nice to see. I certainly hope that the people of the
Big Land make great use of this brand new facility.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was my pleasure to be in Labrador for this occasion, which I think is
significant in the judicial history of Labrador. Not nearly the physical notion
of building a new courthouse for which the current government and the previous
government were given due credit for undertaking but also for the fact that this
opening was held in conjunction with a seminar on Aboriginal justice hosted by
the Law Society at which very important issues were brought forward by both the
Innu and Inuit First Nations, and the fact that they fully participated in these
hearings was itself of significance. The theme, Mr. Speaker, of the opening, the
minister's own remarks and those of others, including Chief Justice Green,
were about the necessity of the justice system in Labrador to be sensitive to
the needs of all people.
May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to continue?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The sensitivity and the need for sensitivity by the court system and the
judicial system to the Aboriginal people of Labrador. Brought to attention many
times was the failure of the judicial system and the court system to understand
the ways of the Innu and Inuit, and in many respects, the language and culture.
The notion of the thirst for justice amongst Aboriginal people was again, part
of the theme and a commitment was made, both by the minister and by the Chief
Justice, to endeavour to ensure that the judicial system in all of Labrador will
respond in the future to the unique needs and circumstances of the Aboriginal
communities.
It was indeed an event of significance, which is why I took the time to
attend, and was very pleased to be a part of this historic occasion. The
courthouse is in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, but the courthouse is a
courthouse that serves all of Labrador - Labrador West, North, South, Central
Labrador - and now, with the commitment of the Minister of Justice and the Chief
Justice, will endeavour to serve well all of the peoples of Labrador as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The events which occurred in the House of Assembly last week, with the Member
for St. George's-Stephenville East answering questions and making
announcements related to the Department of Health and Community Services, is
very unusual to say the least.
The Executive Council Act,
section 5, establishes principles that a minister
presides over a department and is responsible for that department. The Executive
Council Act also clearly states in
section 6 that, in the absence of the
minister, an acting minister would have that same responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: In light of the provisions in the
Executive Council Act, when is government going to deal with this issue in a
straightforward manner and make an official announcement from the Department of
Health that confirms the hasty policies that the member opposite blurted out
last week in the House of Assembly?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if government - and we, being the government - did not make that
announcement last week, the member would be on her feet today asking us why we
are going to let those reports and recommendations stand that would have
affected women, particularly on the West and Southwest Coast of the Province.
The fact of the matter is this: Irrespective of the Executive Council Act, it
is up to government to decide which minister responds to which issues.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) break the act.
MR. E. BYRNE: We are not breaking the act in any way, shape or form.
The Minister Responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the
Status of Women took the opportunity last week to make an announcement, of
behalf of the government, that we felt was important to women in the Province.
In doing so, she made an announcement on behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East
made some very significant promises in the House of Assembly last week. We, on
this side of the House, want to be sure that the Premier and the government will
keep the promises that they have made.
Under
section 25 of the appropriation accounts of the Financial
Administration Act it clearly stipulates that no public money be spent unless
there is a balance available in the appropriations authorized by the
Legislature.
Now I have to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is he committed to allocating the
necessary resources to see that the promises are kept, that the member made last
week, and will the Legislature have to make amendments to the Estimates of the
Department of Health and Community Services in order to accommodate these
promises?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would say, no, we are not going to follow the direction of the former
government when the Auditor General, year after year after year, told how they
violated the Financial Administration Act. We are going to follow the Financial
Administration Act. We are going to adhere to it, and money will not be spent
that is not appropriate. There are two avenues to do it, if it is not
appropriate.
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: There are two avenues. If the Member for Bay of Islands
will listen, I will give the answer - if he is trying to shout me down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: There are two avenues, I would say. One is to bring a
Supplementary Supply Bill to this House, which we have done. The other is a
special warrant, where the House is not sitting and there is no other manner in
which to deal with it.
We tabled one special warrant here because the physicians were not paid by
March 10. They would not be able to get paid if it was not done, because there
were (inaudible) new physicians -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) use their money to pay the VON.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: - fee-for-service physicians came on stream in this
Province.
What the member is talking about, she does not know what she is talking
about. She is talking about a practice that their government practiced for
years, and she is so used to that practice that she expects us to do the same.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this much I do know. This board has an accumulated
debt of $28 million. Is the minister going to ante up the money to pay for the
promises made by the member next to him, or is he going to force the board, who
already has a $28 million debt, to pay for this service - in fact, increasing
their own debt - or is he going to force them to cut more services and more
programs to balance their books in order to do it? It has to be one or the
other.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member should understand that a $28 million debt has nothing to do with
the estimates and spending for this year. That is a debt of the past. The $125
million debt -
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. the minister. I ask members for their
co-operation so he can present his answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If they do not want an answer, they should not ask the question.
There is a $125 million accumulated debt by boards in this Province, almost
every penny accumulated even while you were a minister in government - a good
portion of that debt. What we are doing this year, Mr. Speaker, is, we are
giving the boards an additional $20 million to assist in meeting their budget
targets, allowing another $11 million for transition and money for inflation in
that process; $31 million new money this year to enable a balanced budget. Then
we are going to look at the long-term debt that is there, the $125 million, and
over the next ten years look at dealing with that and getting rid of the debt,
Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) here in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer is obvious, they are going to have to cut more services in order
to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Health to clarify exactly what is
happening. Recommendation 164 related to baby deliveries in Port au Basques is
off the table, recommendation 151 related to food services in Stephenville is
off the table, recommendations 170 and 174 related to baby deliveries in
Stephenville are off the table, and recommendation 136 related to protective
care services in Stephenville Crossing is off the table.
Minister, can you confirm, are these recommendations really off the table and
can you confirm whether recommendation 172 which relates to the transferring of
long-term care patients from Corner Brook to Stephenville is also off the table?
MR. SPEAKER: The acting Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know which one of the ten questions she wants me to answer first. A
minister here in government -
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Now she doesn't want to listen. She shouts when I try to
give an answer, Mr. Speaker. If she doesn't want it, don't ask the question.
The answer is that this government is elected to establish policy. We work in
co-ordination with boards to implement and put policy through in the Province.
That is our responsibility. The member representing the area and the Minister of
Human Resources, Labour and Employment was congratulated by the Opposition House
Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, in Stephenville for making this
response. Are you happy with it? Do you want it reversed, or what is wrong? Can
you answer that question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question for the hon. member.
There were a number of recommendations that the Member for Stephenville East
committed to last week. I am asking you, as the acting Minister of Health, to
confirm these for me. They were recommendations 164, 151, 170, 174 and 136.
I also asked the hon. member if the recommendations I just listed are off the
table altogether, gone, forgotten about, and if he can confirm for me whether
recommendation 172, which is relative to the transferring of long-term care
patients from Corner Brook to Stephenville, is also off the table.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the acting Minister of Health and Community
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister spoke for government on the first five recommendations that you
referenced there. She articulated government policy and that is factual and she
eliminated -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: The last question, on recommendation, I think, 174, the
last one you asked, I answered that here in this Legislature two hours ago for
the Estimates Committee here. I answered that to the Member for Bay of Islands.
If you want me to repeat it again, I will repeat it. We will deal with boards in
this Province. We will work forward in co-operation with my department and with
boards that are there. We will deal with situations as they arise and we will
make the appropriate decision on all aspects as they are coming out of the Hay
report or any other report that we are asked to deal with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Now, Mr. Speaker, referring to the Grenfell board, can the
Acting Minister of Health confirm for me what the Member for St. George's-Stephenville
East said last week in the House, that all the recommendations in the Hay Group
report relating to the Grenfell board is now off the table?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is in Hansard what the minister indicated, representing government. You
have a copy of that. She has indicated on obstetrics and surgery and so on in
Port aux Basques and Stephenville. By the way, there is no obstetrician in Port
aux Basques anyway, to my knowledge. Those decisions are being articulated here,
the government policy there. I do not know what else she wants us to do. They
are unhappy, Mr. Speaker, because we announced it, and now they are complaining.
If we do not announce it they complain and when we announce it they complain. I
do not know what they want on that side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not prepared to stand in
his place today and give the same assurances to the people of the Grenfell
region as it relates to this report.
My next question, Mr. Speaker. At the very least, minister, can you stand in
your place today and tell the people of the St. Anthony region that the
recommendations in the Hay Group report relating to obstetrics and genecology
will not be cut from their hospital or will you stand and explain to them why
there is a double standard in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury
Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Hay report was done on the Grenfell, that is now a part of the Labrador
Grenfell board. The dynamics and delivery of service has changed, and that will
be done -
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: She does not want to hear the answer. She asked a question.
I do not shout when she is asking a question. I do not know why she wants to
shout when I am giving an answer. If she wants me to answer, I will answer it,
if not I will sit down.
There is a new dynamics with the Labrador Grenfell board now and they will be
done in consultation with the departments and boards to effect the best possible
delivery of services in that region.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is unfortunate that we cannot get the acting minister to confirm what the
member said in a straightforward answer in the House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly last Tuesday, a week ago today, the
Minister of Fisheries stated, in reference to the production quota system, and I
quote, these are his words again: If people do not want that, we can pull back.
We can pull back and we can let the market and free enterprise drive the
industry. When I asked the minister this question, the House Leader confirmed
that was the government position. Later in the week, he refused to answer it.
I ask the Premier, because he was not here that day: Do you agree with your
minister that free enterprise should govern the industry and are you willing to
pull back this production quota system like the minister says, something fish
harvesters have continuously been requesting of you and your government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and hon. members opposite, that
I fully agree with the position that has been taken by the Minister of Fisheries
with the raw material sharing program that he has put forward. It is something
that we have taken under consultation in Cabinet. We have given it very serious
consideration. We have looked at the recommendations of Mr. Dunne and others. It
is a decision that we have not taken lightly. I fully support his position which
he has put forward. Do not try to put words in his mouth. Do not try to
cherry-pick some of the words that he said and imply that he meant something
else. You heard what he said in his answer before this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: You know exactly what he meant and we made our decision
on this, so we are moving forward.
However, having said that, what we are certainly prepared to do, we are
prepared to sit down and have a discussion, at any particular point in time,
with the members of the union. We have said it all along and we continue to be
ready, willing and able and available to have a discussion with the members of
the union.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me ask about some words. These are not our
words. We are not putting words in anybody's mouth. We are quoting exact words
of a Minister of the Crown of the government. In a media scrum outside this
House, broadcast all over Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Fisheries
stated that if fish harvesters did not want a production quota system and wanted
free enterprise to govern the industry - they were his words - fine with him.
Fine with me, he said.
I ask the Premier, again: If both of you agree, and if it is fine with him
that we can take it off the table, why won't you allow him to do so? He
obviously wants to take this off the table. Why won't you allow him to do so,
Mr. Premier? Because in your words - not mine - it is only a pilot project, you
have said publicly. Why not delay it - if it is only a pilot project and you do
not know if it is going to work - have the consultation that you personally
promised the union and the fish harvesters, and try this next year?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair wishes to bring to the attention of visitors that they are not to
participate in any way in any of the discussions on the floor of the House. The
Chair's tolerance for interruptions has reached the stage where we will not be
able to tolerate any further interruptions. If there are any more interruptions,
the Chair will cause the galleries to be cleared.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with going down the road of free enterprise and the
market determining what happens in the fishery is that the vast majority - the
vast majority - of the people in the industry do not want that to happen. There
are some people who want free enterprise, and I admire them for that. There are
some people who want the market to determine what happens with price, what
happens with plants, what happens with harvesters, what happens with everything
in the industry, and what happens with communities, but the vast majority of
people in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether in the
harvesting sector or the processing sector, Mr. Speaker, whether plant workers
or fishermen, do not want the market to determine what happens with their boat,
their plant, their community, their fish and their livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, if they did, they would not have been crying for individual
quotas in the harvesting sector. They would not be demanding government
intervene in the various parts of the industry that they have always demanded us
to intervene in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is kind of strange that this same government decided to let the market and
the big companies like FPI close a plant in Harbour Breton and all of a sudden
now you are not for the big companies and free market; you want to control
things.
Mr. Speaker, in his comments last week, the Minister of Fisheries stated that
if fish harvesters did not agree to the production quota system - again, his
words - they should not come crying to government to address any other concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Now that his Minister of Fisheries has, in
fact, de facto, quit - because that is a matter of resignation, that he says:
Don't come to me if you have any other problems unless I get my way on this
system - how can he expect this minister to have any credibility? When is he
going to replace this minister with one that might deal with the true and
legitimate concerns of the people of the Province, no matter where they are?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the people last week when I made
those comments is, if you want the market to determine what happens in the
industry, then let the market determine what happens in the industry, but don't
come back - and there is no point in coming back. If you want the market to deal
with it, you cannot come back after a place like Fogo runs into trouble, or a
place like New Harbour runs into trouble, or a place like Harbour Breton runs
into trouble, or wherever, and ask government to step in, to intercede, to try
and bail everybody out. That is what has happened in the past. We have been half
pregnant all along; that is what the trouble is with the industry here.
If people want collective bargaining, we are prepared to dress up the
Collective Bargaining Act to address their concerns. If people want control over
a product, where it moves in the Province, we are prepared to deal with that. If
they want limits on corporate concentration, we are prepared to deal with that.
If they want the market to deal with it then we are prepared to let the market
deal with it, but bear in mind where the chips are going to fall (inaudible).
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is not able to tolerate any further interruptions. The Speaker
orders that the public galleries be cleared and that they remain cleared until
the Speaker can be assured by the Sergeant-at-Arms that the House can proceed
with the parliamentary agenda in an uninterrupted manner.
This House is now in recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
By the Chair's calculation, there is eleven minutes left in Question
Period. I think that would be approximately the time and we will let it go at
eleven, if that is agreeable to the House Leaders.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen quite clearly today in this Question Period
that there is clearly a difference of opinion between the Minister of Fisheries
and the Premier with respect to this production quota system. In my last
question the Minister of Fisheries, again, said: If they want free enterprise,
they can have it. We will take this off the table.
I ask the Premier, again, one more time: Why is it, Mr. Premier, that you
will not agree with your Fisheries Minister who clearly wants to take this off
the table?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we can say it
as a government. We adopted a plan here. It is a plan that has been well thought
out. It is a plan that is based on discussion. It is a plan that is based on the
Dunne Report and the consultations that Mr. Dunne had. It is based on
discussions that all our members, all our Caucus members have had throughout
their districts with people in their districts and we have reached a rational
decision. I cannot understand why hon. members opposite would have a problem
with that kind of a decision. As for myself and the minister, we are completely
in sync on this. If the minister makes an expression of possible frustration and
throwing up his hands, he is basically saying that people want that. Is that
what they really want? Because that is not what is in their best interest. What
we are trying to do is what is in the long-term best interest of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. You see, this is the people's resource. The fish in
this Province are the people's resource. The crab are the people's resource.
As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows as a former unelected Premier -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Oh, I am sorry, excuse me.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it is enlightening to know that of course the Premier knows what is
best for everybody, nobody else happens to know. That is what he just said.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier also indicated that the members have checked with
their districts. Well, I was, and with other people, visiting in Bonavista North
on the weekend where we were told quite clearly that the Member for Bonavista
North, who sits in his caucus, sides squarely and clearly, at least in his own
district when he is there, with the fish harvesters and that he has told them in
the communities that he is on the side of the fish harvesters.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again a very simple question: what does the
issue of production quotas for crab have to do with the community of Harbour
Breton?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the issue of production quotas or raw material
shares or what have you, has nothing to do with the community of Harbour Breton.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, when people demand that government let the
market and free enterprise determine what happens in the fishing industry than
it has a whole lot to do with Harbour Breton and Fogo and New Harbour and Englee
and La Scie and all of the rest of the communities that depend on the fishing
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, because if you are going to have free
enterprise and if you are going to have the market determine what happens than
you have to let the market determine what happens.
Now, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and successive governments have
determined that it is not in the best interest of the people of the Province to
let the market and free enterprise determine what happens. They have determined
over time, over thirty years now, that they want governments to manage in some
way, shape or form the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we
have laid out in a raw material sharing system that we rolled out on March 2 is
our attempt at taking control of the jurisdiction that is constitutionally ours
in this country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries, as well. I say to the
minister, you let free enterprise work in Harbour Breton and the town is closed
today.
Mr. Speaker, last week when asked whether or not the plants -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. REID: May I have some order here, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognize the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, you did nothing for Harbour
Breton and you will do nothing for anyone. That is what I say to the minister.
Last week, when asked whether or not the plants in Englee and New Ferolle
would open this year, the minister responded that he felt confident the plant in
New Ferolle would open, but he did not mention Englee. The minister is the
member for that district and I know that he has had discussions with the
operator of the plant in Englee. Can you confirm that that plant will be open
for crab production this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that the crowd
in Englee are going to process crab this year on the cement foundation that was
poured when he was the minister back in 2002. That is what they are going to
process crab on. He knows full well that they cannot build a new plant in that
period of time. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that with a raw material sharing system
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that harvesting and processing enterprises
will find the stability they need to be make the appropriate investments in
their communities. That is what we hope, Mr. Speaker.
To speak to the Harbour Breton situation once again, we did quite a lot so
far to help out the people of Harbour Breton and we are going to do more. I will
let the Member for Twillingate & Fogo know he is absolutely right, when you
let the free enterprise and when you let the market determine what happens, the
situation in Harbour Breton (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: The minister just said that they cannot expect the plant to be
built in four years. The minister just said that the plant in Englee would not
be open this year. Now, it is our understanding that the owner of the plant in
Englee is also involved with the plant in New Ferolle. Will the minister confirm
now that the crab production quota slated for Englee will be transferred this
year to New Ferolle?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, just like his colleague, the Leader of
the Opposition, is certainly not married to the truth, I can tell you that. That
is half the trouble with the situation in this Province. That is half the
trouble with the fishery, that people like the Leader of the Opposition and the
Member for Twillingate & Fogo have no - no! - concept of what is going on in
the industry; either that, Mr. Speaker, or they completely disregard the facts.
Mr. Speaker, all they are concerned about is trying to make political hay out
of a very difficult situation that is confronting the fishing industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to play that game. We are
trying to stabilize this industry for the communities and the people in the
industry for the long term. We are not interested in the political rhetoric of
the member -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister talks about being married to the truth. Ask the people in this
Province today who they believe, I say to the minister. He won't be on the top
of the list, I will guarantee you that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that the plant in Woody
Point has been given a production quota that is higher than what it actually
processed in the last three years. On the other hand, we heard this morning that
a processor in St. Mary's is only getting about half of what he processed last
year. I also understand that the minister has been cutting side deals with the
owners of plants to stop them from complaining about this production quota
scheme.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How do you expect people to support this
scheme when you continue to change the rules for your own political gain?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Gentlemen, ladies, colleagues, thank you very much.
We have had a little misunderstanding here relative to our clock. I do
believe that we have to go immediately to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,
but I will let the minister have about thirty seconds for an answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the people of this Province believe, but I can
guarantee you one thing: when it comes to a debate between me and the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo, I know who the people of the Province believe is trying
to fix the fishing industry in this Province, and it is not the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If I could ask members for their agreement, because we do not have sufficient
time left to give the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi his four minutes, if I
could, by agreement, let that happen.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last weekend, the Chair of the associated seafood producers broke his silence
on the matter and came out, possibly at the urging of the minister, in support
of the government's position on resource management. He said: They say that,
in the opinion of the association, the vast majority of harvesters still want to
fish and aren't opposed to raw material shares.
Why, in the face of an 85 per cent vote to tie up their boats in protest,
does this minister insist on these dictatorial policies in support of the crab
processors and opposed to the fish harvesters? Why is he doing that, despite the
fact that there has been an 85 per cent vote against this by the fish
harvesters? Why is he acting in favour of the companies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that the fishing
industry, the crab industry in particular, has just about 15,000 participants in
it. The last time I checked, roughly 2,000 to 2,100 of the people involved in
that industry came out to vote against the proposal. That is what happened.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: We, as a government, have a responsibility to communities and
we have a responsibility to plant workers. We have a responsibility to
harvesters, we have a responsibility to everybody who is involved with the
fishing industry, and all of the people of the Province. The plan that we rolled
out tries, and attempts, and will deal with the legitimate concerns of all those
people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Because of a malfunction in our clock, the Chair will permit
one final question by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the minister has no respect for the views of the fisheries union.
In earlier times fishers had no choice, by reasons of geography, but to sell to
the local fish merchant. Now, with increased boat technology and more mobility,
they do have the power to sell to whomever they want and get a better deal. Why
is he turning back the clock, and turning back to the fish processors the same
powers that the fish merchant had of old? Why is he doing that against the
interests of the fish harvesters?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, like I said last week, I cannot believe the Leader of the NDP is
advocating for a free enterprise free market system in the fishing industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, if he was standing up here today and asking why
we are not prepared to deal with the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act
to fix the problems that are in that, to have a mandatory dispute resolution
mechanism, to have a mandatory mediation arbitration process so that we could
avoid the problem that we had last year, then I would say it is a fair question,
because that is exactly what we are prepared to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice
of the following private member's motion to be debated tomorrow:
WHEREAS many municipalities in this Province are currently experiencing
severe financial difficulties; and
WHEREAS this Province has already experienced the out-migration of 2,700
young people from rural communities in this past eighteen months; and
WHEREAS the unemployment rate in many communities is at an unacceptable
level; and
WHEREAS government policy has compromised the delivery of government services
in rural communities, having a detrimental effect on the rural economy; and
WHEREAS, despite the promises made during the last election, the current
government has not taken the action necessary to deal with the immediate crisis
which exists in rural parts of this Province, and
WHEREAS the government has created a crisis in fishing communities around the
Province through the imposition of ill-conceived policies; and
WHEREAS there is no evidence that this government has any plan to deal with
the crisis facing rural communities in this Province;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognizes the
seriousness of the situation facing rural areas of this Province and calls on
the government to finally take action against the crisis facing the future of
rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I guess I can do this at any point but I will
do it under notices.
I want to give notice that, on tomorrow, under Standing Order 11, the House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, and also not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on
Thursday. I am just giving notice now.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today, Mr. Speaker, to present another petition on behalf of the
harvesters and plant workers of this Province with regard to the development of
a raw material sharing system.
Mr. Speaker, today, again, I heard the Premier state very clearly that the
thirty-four members on the other side of the House met with their constituents,
brought their concerns with regard to this situation back to them, and
everything seems to be fine there; but, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this
weekend to speak with constituents in Trinity-Bay de Verde, in that district, a
great opportunity in Carbonear-Harbour Grace, during a function, in my own
district and in the District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne. Mr. Speaker, the
message is loud and clear, and it is not only from harvesters, not only from
plant workers, not only from some processors, but it is from the general public.
I am referencing the business people who have major concerns about this. They
have major concerns, and the general populace out there are saying: When you go
back, bring back a message to the Premier. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, the time
has gone too far now to bring back a message to the Premier, because he has
stated very clearly, that he is not going to change. He stated last week he was
standing firm. He turned around, Mr. Speaker, and said the fishermen are trying
to take over the government of this Province. Now, what a statement for a
Premier to make! Surely goodness, he knows that not only the fishers of this
Province, but every citizen, they are the government. They are the people who
elect us and bring us here, Mr. Speaker, every three or four years. Those people
have major concerns.
I honestly believe that when the regional minister supposedly came back from
Ottawa with the Atlantic Accord and said, here is a deal, take it or leave it,
Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House and every person in this Province stood
behind the Premier on that particular issue. Here we have the same man now, the
Premier of this Province, saying to the fish harvesters and those in the
industry: Here is the proposal, you take it or leave it. Mr. Speaker, it is not
acceptable and I think it has gone beyond asking the Premier or the minister to
sit down. I think the individual members on the other side are getting the
message loud and clear in their districts. We hear the rumblings. I challenge
them to stand.
The Premier is saying that all they are getting from the members opposite is
good news stories coming back about this proposal. Mr. Speaker, that is not
correct, and I challenge each member over there. What we are seeing is a Premier
who is trying to govern with an iron fist and I don't think that is
appropriate in this democratic society that we live in. Those people have
rights, they want to protect them, and they are prepared, Mr. Speaker, through
their union to sit down and negotiate a deal. If it is a pilot project, put it
on hold. Everyone's lives are in turmoil over the next two or three weeks
unless this industry is open.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, have a petition today from a group of fish harvesters and plant
workers from various parts of the Province, who are calling upon the government
to remove this ill-conceived production quota scheme from the table and do as
the Dunne report suggested, and that is only implement production quotas if and
when fish harvesters and the FFAW in this Province agree that they should be
implemented.
I heard, like my colleague from Port de Grave today, that the Premier got up
and said he is following the recommendations of the Dunne report, and that his
MHAs have been out around their districts and that they are getting support for
production quotas. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, I don't think
the MHAs are going home to their districts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador,
where the fishery is the biggest part of their income, and coming back with the
message that the people in these rural communities are in support of what the
Premier is trying to ram down the throats of fishermen.
I have a petition here today from people in Admiral's Beach, in St. Mary's,
O'Donnells, King's Point, Little Bay Islands, and I have another half a
dozen there that I will be presenting to the House in the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: what the MHAs are telling the Premier
when he gets them in the caucus room and tells them that they are not allowed to
speak is not what the MHAs are telling their constituents; because some of the
MHAs who are sitting over there today with their heads down are out in various
parts of their district telling fishermen and telling plant workers that they
are diametrically opposed to what the Premier is trying to do here, and that
they are in there telling the Premier that is the case. So, what the Premier is
saying today basically is what these individuals, what these MHAs, like the one
from St. Mary's Bay, is not coming back to the House of Assembly or coming
back to the Premier and telling him the truth, because what he is saying outside
the House, or outside the caucus room, is not what he is telling the people in
his constituency. That goes for a lot of them on the opposite side.
Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to get up today and say he is living with the
recommendation of the Dunne report, nothing could be further from the truth. He
is trying to hoodwink the population of this Province to believe that Eric Dunne
actually made that recommendation - and his minister, the puppet, has been up a
number of times, almost to the point -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: All right, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair asks the member to withdraw the word puppet.
MR. REID: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that Eric Dunne never did make
the recommendation that this production quota system should come in place. What
Eric Dunne said is that the only way that production quotas should come to be
is, if and when it were agreed to by the harvesters and the plant workers of
this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, I know that he will not let the crowd
opposite speak in the House of Assembly, and I doubt very much if he allows them
to speak in caucus, because if he is saying today that all thirty-three members
over there are in favour of production quotas, then I suggest what the people,
those thirty-three members, are saying to the Premier is not what he is saying
to his constituents, but at least the Premier is on record today as saying that
is what he is going to do.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people who live in eight
communities in my district; actually, people from Point au Gaul right around to
Grand Beach who use the health care facilities in Grand Bank and Fortune, in
that area.
The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is essentially to call on the
government to live up to the promise that the Premier gave during the last
election; in fact, on three occasions when he said that he would indeed continue
with the replacement facility in Grand Bank, a facility that is utilized by any
number of people in the District of Grand Bank.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here in this petition is a plea, actually. It is a
plea to the government, a plea to the Premier in particular. Obviously he must
have been aware, I assume he was aware, of the deplorable conditions that exist
in the health care facilities in Grand Bank. I know that the previous, previous
Minister of Health, the Member for Conception Bay South, actually toured there
and knows, saw first-hand, how bad the situation is in the health care clinic
there. What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is not a new facility but a
replacement facility. No additional services, just a replacement of existing
services.
When you look at the situation that is down there now, where we have $3.5
million that is gone into putting in place the necessary infrastructure that
needs to go in the ground, in addition to the steel, to complete, to get a start
on the new health care facility down there - to have that standing there, and
people looking at that day in and day out, wondering if the Premier will some
day live up to his promise. We are asking him to do that, Mr. Speaker, because
we have a health care facility down there that is not even safe to go in, when
you are going into that clinic, to try and get some good health care.
We have excellent professionals. We have good doctors, good nursing staff,
good technicians, and, lo and behold, they have to try and provide a service in
a structure that really should be torn down. In suggesting that it be torn down,
that cannot happen until we have a facility in place to replace it.
If you look at the weather conditions, if you look at the road conditions in
that area, we all know - anybody at all would know and understand - that you
cannot send people from that area over to Burin and know that if they need to be
stabilized before leaving, they really do need to be able to access the holding
beds in the clinic.
When you look at the seniors' home there, something that was built to care
for people who required acute care Level I and Level II, today they are not even
cared for, in acute care Level I and Level II. The facility, in fact, cares for
people who require acute care Level III and Level IV.
It is not right for the residents, the seniors, who have to live in that
facility and who need and deserve the good service that is provided by the
health care professionals, but is being provided in a less than adequate
facility, Mr. Speaker.
The petitioners here are calling on the Premier in particular, because it was
the Premier who made the commitment. In particular, they are calling on the
Premier to live up to his commitment. Certainly, he made the commitment. He
thought, when others made promises and did not keep them, that they were not
being honourable. Well, they are saying the same thing to the Premier. How can
you possibly say that if someone else does not keep a promise then they are less
than being honourable?
They know that the Premier has seen the facilities. They know that he has
seen first-hand what needs to happen. He understands. He committed to doing
that, and now they are calling on him to live up to that commitment.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by
roughly 250 people on the Burin Peninsula, calling on the government to put a CT
scanner and a dialysis unit in the Burin hospital.
It is ridiculous, when we hear of the difficulty the people on the Burin
Peninsula have to go through and there does not seem to be anybody on the
government side of the House speaking up for the people on the Burin Peninsula.
I was out in the district on the weekend and everybody was saying that the
Member for Stephenville can get up and announce all kinds of services for
Stephenville. They are wondering where the Member for Burin-Placentia West is,
because they see him on television clapping for, and tapping on his desk for,
the announcements about Stephenville. They do not understand. They do not know
why he cannot get up and make the same announcements about the CT scanner and
the dialysis unit for Burin. If the Member for Stephenville can get up in the
House of Assembly and make these announcements, people are asking me: Where is
the Member for Burin-Placentia West on this? How come he cannot get up and make
the announcement about the CT scanner and the dialysis unit for the Burin
Peninsula?
I guess the Member for Burin-Placentia West does not want those particular
facilities on the Burin Peninsula. As a matter of fact, he is on record as
saying there is no reason why they cannot go to Clarenville. We hear that
Clarenville is supposed to be the hub of the Burin Peninsula. I do not know when
Clarenville was the hub of the Burin Peninsula. I call on the hon. Member for
Burin-Placentia West to stand up.
I have been a member for part of the Burin Peninsula since 1996. I have
travelled many, many times to Marystown and the other parts of the Burin
Peninsula to support activities on the Burin Peninsula. I have gone up to
support the soccer team that was going to St. Lawrence, and all the other things
that were happening on the Burin Peninsula. It is time now that - we have one
representative from the Burin Peninsula on the government side. Stand up and
make sure you make the announcement within the next couple of days that the CT
scanner and the dialysis unit is going on the Burin Peninsula; because, if the
Member for Stephenville can do it, they are saying: How come our member cannot
get up and make the same announcement?
I am calling on the member to stand up for his constituents and all of the
people on the Burin Peninsula to make those announcements, hopefully tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, have a petition from residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to the
hon. House of Assembly, and regards the Dunne report and the recommendation with
respect to raw material sharing only being done when processors can satisfy the
minister that there will or are no substantive or reasonable objection to plant
workers and harvesters.
Well, it is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker - based on a letter to the editor in The
Telegram on the weekend - that the Association of Seafood Producers are
fully in support of the raw material sharing. What the Dunne report actually
says, Mr. Speaker, when the seafood processors come forward with a proposal, is
that the minister should ensure that there are no substantial and reasonable
objections from fish harvesters before it went into the plan. What we have now
is a government insisting on implementing a plan without the consent, and over
the objection, of the fish harvesters. Are they substantial? Are they
reasonable? These are not necessarily matters of opinion. They are certainly
substantial.
We have seen the protest that has been carried out in this Province for the
last two weeks. The fact that 85 per cent of the fish harvesters voted in favour
of tying up their boats in the prospect of doing this, the government insisting
on this deal. When I spoke to fish harvesters last night, Mr. Speaker, they see
themselves staring in the face of control by the fish processors. Now, you
cannot stand blindly against what you see with your own two eyes. The solidarity
amongst fish harvesters is obvious, and, yet, we have the owners, the merchants,
the producers saying: In our opinion, the vast majority of harvesters still want
to fish and are not fundamentally opposed to the raw material share system. That
is the same attitude that this government has. They are not prepared to accept
what they see with their own eyes, what they have been told time and time again
by the people who represent the fish harvesters.
That was not a vote, by the way, as to whether you are opposed or whether you
are against raw material shares. This was whether you are prepared to tie up
your boats, and 85 per cent said they would tie up their boats. Well, I have
been told at meetings over the weekend, not only was there 85 per cent prepared
to tie up their boats, there was 100 per cent opposed to the raw material share
plan of this government. So, what they have done, Mr. Speaker, is they have
given the fish harvesters reason to be totally, totally angry and upset with
this government and determined that they are not going to allow the government
to shift the balance of power in the fishing industry to let the crab producers
have their way.
The petitioners here, Mr. Speaker, say that they have clearly not been
consulted nor included in the process, and they humbly pray and call upon the
House to urge government to only impose production quotas if it is agreed upon
by the FFAW and the processors as recommended in the Dunne report. Mr. Speaker,
it takes two to tango.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present this petition on behalf of residents from my
district. It is with regard to the Dunne report and the raw material sharing
system that the government is jamming down people's throats of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like whenever this government comes up with a plan it
is full speed ahead. Never mind what anyone is saying. It is strange that
everybody in the Province - if you listen to the open line programs, you look at
the galleries, the people outside. I know for four days in my district people
were telling me: For heavens sakes, ask the government to put this pilot project
they are talking about on hold for a little while and let the economy get on. I
have had car dealerships out there concerned about lack of sales. It seems like,
with this government, it is my way or the highway. It is almost like a mother
looking at a parade: Look, everybody is out of step except my Johnny. The
government is clearly out of step here. The government is Johnny out of step.
There is nobody recommending this.
I go to the Dunne report and the recommendation of the Dunne report, one of
the suggestions is development, in consultation with industry, clearly says: In
consultation with industry if a pilot project for sharing of raw material by the
processing sector for which a proposal would have to come from a group of
processors representing at least three-quarters of the active processing licence
holders. Now, there has been no consultation with industry whatsoever. None
whatsoever, unless we, of course, assume that the industry are to processors.
That is the only assumption that we can make from what this report says and what
is actually happening.
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer everyday that the processors are not all
onside with this. I heard on Open Line last night of a processor whose quota was
cut from 1 million pounds down to 500,000 pounds. Now that is something for a
small community in rural Newfoundland, to have half their product processed this
year. So if there were 100 people processed that crab last summer where are the
other fifty people this summer going to get work in rural Newfoundland?
MR. GRIMES: Fort McMurray.
MR. SWEENEY: I say yes, Newfoundland's biggest capital right now is
Fort McMurray, at the rate we are going with 2,600 people already gone from the
Province. Mr. Speaker, there is just no justification for what is going on.
MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).
MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, step outside the
overpass and go out around rural Newfoundland and see what is happening out
there. That is what I say to you. Do not get up and try to rattle me on my three
minutes here today when I am speaking here on behalf of my people. Have the
courage to get up and stand, don't just toe the line of your leader. Don't
just toe the line.
Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
Has leave been granted to make some concluding comments?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I will be back with another petition and I
humbly ask the government members opposite to stand up, represent their
constituents and tell the Premier this step is the wrong step.
MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House
Leader, the Chair wishes to make a statement to the House.
The Speaker expresses grave concern for the institution of Parliament and for
the preservation of the rule of law. For the past nine sitting days our Assembly
has been interrupted by disturbances in the public galleries and requests by the
Speaker for order and decorum have been largely ignored. The Speaker has been
obliged to recess the House repeatedly, and on most days the public galleries
remained closed for the balance of that sitting day. The House of Assembly
cannot continue to be interrupted by visitors in the public galleries.
Parliament must be able to function in our democratic system and the Speaker is
entrusted by tradition, by practice and by our Standing Orders, to ensure the
rule of law is upheld.
Over the past days the Speaker has been very patient with those who are
visitors in the galleries. The privilege of attending in the public galleries
must be seen as a lesser democratic value than the right of duly elected members
to conduct the business of the House of Assembly. The differences between those
who are visitors in the galleries and government must not be seen as differences
between the visitors and the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly and the
government are two distinct and different entities. The Speaker must assure that
Parliament functions, and that it functions properly.
Regrettably, the Speaker wishes to advise the House that the public galleries
will remain closed until the Speaker can be assured by the Sergeant-at-Arms that
those who attend in the public galleries can be expected to respect the House
traditions regarding order and decorum. This action is unfortunate, however, in
the Speaker's opinion, it has become necessary.
The Speaker wishes to note that the press gallery and the Speaker's gallery
will remain open. Our parliamentary proceedings will continue to be broadcast
directly and in their entirety.
The Speaker regrets any inconvenience this may cause, especially to student
groups who have planned visits to the House. I hope this matter can be resolved
very quickly.
Again, I emphasize, visitors are welcome in our Assembly but they cannot
interfere with our proceedings.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion1, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of
the government, commonly referred to as the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: I know you are going to rule that it is not a point of order,
so again I may have to rise on a point of privilege afterwards, but if you would
just give me a minute because this is very serious.
I understand exactly the statement you just made as the Speaker, and I
understand it is your prerogative to do so, but, Mr. Speaker, I would ask some
questions. In the past, you have indicated that it is improper and it is not in
order to ask questions of the Speaker, but when the Speaker has, of his own
volition, with no prodding from anybody, made a statement, I don't know how we
are supposed to get the answers without asking a question of the Speaker.
The issue that you raised was that you would close the public galleries until
you can have some assurance that those who are attending are going to attend in
order and be in order as they attend.
My question, under a point of order, is: How do you intend to determine that?
Are people doing to be asked outside, as they request entry each day at 1:30
p.m., or 2:00 p.m. on tomorrow because tomorrow we start at 2:00 p.m. - if they
sign an undertaking at the front desk, that they will come in and stay in order,
are they going to be allowed in? If someone comes and identifies themself,
tomorrow or the next day, as having no connection to the crab fishery or
anything else, if they are a group of students - because I know there are some
from my district scheduled to be here - are they going to be allowed in? If a
member of my family, who is visiting in town, wants to visit the gallery, can
they only be here if I go through the Speaker's Office and ask that they sit
in the Speaker's Gallery? These are serious questions, Mr. Speaker.
If that ruling and that statement that you just made is not further clarified
our caucus will have to have a meeting and give real consideration as to whether
or not we can support the ruling and whether or not we will agree to come to a
legislature that is closed beforehand, presuming and assuming disorder and
misconduct before it ever occurs.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that on one day only has
the session of our Parliament been suspended for the remainder of the day. Every
other day of the nine that you have talked about, including today - we are here
with about two hours left in our parliamentary agenda in which we can continue
to conduct business. We have conducted business every single day. I do not
understand, as one hon. member in this House, what the urgency is, what has
driven you to this, what advice you have received; and again, just like the
problem we had a week or so ago, no consultation in advance with ourselves as a
party entity in this House, no consultation, I would assume, with the government
and the government caucus - I can only assume that, if we are all to be treated
equally - and no consultation, that I am aware of, with the NDP caucus in this
Legislature.
I know that the normal rules of order are that you do not question the
Speaker, but how can we get answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker, on a
statement that you just, of your own volition, made to the House? I would ask
that you address those, if you can, under our rules of order.
MR. SPEAKER: As the member is well aware, statements cannot be addressed
to the Speaker and the Speaker cannot reply. However, the Speaker has to take
into consideration - as I said on Thursday and on other days, the Speaker is
responsible for order and decorum in this Legislature. In that connection, the
Speaker has to make very difficult decisions. For a great number of days we have
had continuous interruptions. The Speaker has to make sure that the House is
able to function and we cannot function with the interruptions we have been
having consistently for the past number of days.
The Speaker's statement stands and it will be the policy and is the policy
of this Speaker. Until the Sergeant-at-Arms can advise this Speaker that there
is a reasonable expectation that visitors will obey the rules of order and
decorum, visitors' galleries will close. However, the Speaker's gallery will
remain open and the press gallery will remain open.
MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this relates directly to Standing Order 23, and I suspect, by
Your Honour's ruling, you have cancelled Standing Order 23 from our Standing
Orders. Standing Order 23 says, "Any stranger..." and I can certainly
be educated on this. My understanding is that strangers in the House would refer
to persons in the galleries, who get into the galleries once Your Honour calls
order at the beginning of the day's session and says: Admit strangers.
Section
23, which I understand is the predominant order which takes precedence in our
House, states, "Any stranger admitted into any part of the House or
gallery, who misconducts himself or herself, or who does not withdraw when
strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any Committee of the
Whole House, is sitting, shall be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms and
no person so taken into custody shall be discharged without a special order of
the House."
I would think that is the predominant rule, the precedent, the Standing Order
of this House, that first of all, it says here, they had to get in here; there
has to be a stranger in here. Then and only then, if that person misconducts
himself or herself, there is an action taken. I submit that we are in breach of
our own orders by having such a ruling that contravenes this rule 23. We are not
even allowing any strangers into the House to see if we do or do not apply rule
23. I am suggesting that rule 23 is the precedence we have here. It is the law
of this Legislature, that no only Your Honour lives by but every preceding
Speaker in this institution has lived by, and I would assume everybody to comes
after will live by, unless we, as a House, decide we do not want that Standing
Order anymore based upon a rules committee.
Right now, we have had the rules of this House, I would submit, usurped by
that ruling when we do not even have the strangers into the gallery to decide if
he or she did or did not misconduct himself or herself. Once that is done, the
person must be asked to withdraw. I think it is totally improper and
undemocratic to assume and presume that people who enter here, at your
invitation at the beginning of the day's sessions when you say, admit
strangers, are presumed to cause disruption. That goes contrary to and flies in
the face of all logic that our very system is founded upon.
We have the remedy right in here. It says: "... when strangers are
directed to withdraw..." - which the Chair would do if you found that they
did misconduct himself or herself - they "...shall be taken into custody by
the Sergeant-at-Arms..." In the last nine days, we have not had one
incident in this House where that Standing Order 23 has been implemented, and
yet we have taken, I would submit, the draconian measure of usurping our own
Standing Orders and barring the Chambers before we even have any strangers here.
I am just lost on the logic, Your Honour, of how we, without any prompting
from anyone, without using the rules we already have, and the Sergeant-at-Arms
we already have, jump ten steps and ten paces and say we are going to lock the
doors.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker will grant a brief interruption or a brief comment by the Member
for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To that point of order and response to your statement, I find the statement
and the decision of Your Honour to be quite extraordinary. I have to wonder - we
have not really had time to digest our statement which was made. I am not aware
of any precedent of that nature.
Reviewing Marleau and Montpetit, in dealing with disorder in the galleries,
it does talk about disorder in the galleries and the role of the
Sergeant-at-Arms. "From time to time there have been instances of
misconduct in the galleries and the Sergeant-at-Arms and security staff have
acted to remove demonstrators or strangers behaving in a disruptive way."
It goes on to say on page 241. "In cases of extreme disorder, the Speaker
has directed that the galleries be cleared. In addition, should the House adopt
the motion " That strangers be ordered to withdraw," it would be the
duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms and security staff to clear the galleries of
strangers." There is no reference to declaring that the galleries shall be
closed forthwith or upon some condition or until something happens in the
future, so that tomorrow when we conduct business the galleries will not be
open, we will not have the Speaker say admit strangers.
This seems to be very extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, and - I am not aware of any
previous precedent, certainly not in this House since I have been here, since
1990 - I do not know under what authority the Speaker is able to make such a
ruling, frankly. I would appreciate some opportunity to research the question
and find out what the appropriate response would be.
I agree with the Opposition House Leader that, to presume that strangers -
there are many different people in this House. Some of them were police officers
this afternoon. Others are officials of various parties, and work in various
offices, and members of the public who are present in this House. It seems to me
that, in the absence of any activity that the Speaker can respond to, I am not
aware of what authority, other than a motion of this House, to actually have the
galleries cleared of strangers.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker, again, cannot engage in debate; however, the Speaker certainly
wishes to advise members, and he hopes that there can be a dialogue that can
occur which will permit the Sergeant-at-Arms to be able to report to the Speaker
that this extraordinary step that the Speaker feels obliged to take can be
lifted very quickly.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) orders from Danny.
MR. SPEAKER: However -
MR. BARRETT: Orders from Danny it was.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Member for the District of Bellevue to withdraw the comment that he
just made casting reflections on the Chair.
MR. BARRETT: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will take that as a withdrawal. It was stated as
an apology, and that is satisfactory to the Speaker.
The Speaker hopes that we can come back very quickly, even before the end of
this day, and be able to say that we can have arrangements made; however, we
cannot continue. Parliament must function. It falls upon me to make an
extraordinary decision. Decisions regarding limitations of access have been made
in other Legislatures, and the decision stands until I can be advised otherwise.
The Orders of the Day have been called.
MR. GRIMES: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I find your particular statement to the House,
and the action taken, so startling and so unwarranted in the circumstances that
we have actually been involved in here for the last nine sitting days, two
questions arise. One is, I do not see the severity of the interruption that
would cause this kind of an action to be taken by yourself, as the Speaker, on
behalf of ourselves as members. Secondly, as was raised by the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would need some time to again research under what authority
the Speaker - unless there is some kind of a crisis in the land, or some kind of
anarchy, disorder or lawlessness, like the kinds of things that happened in
other Legislatures where guns were fired at members, and those kinds of things,
that made perfect sense to close a Legislature, so I know it has been done in
the past. I think that is a far cry from what we have experienced here.
As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, again, I do not know how, in the statement
that you have made, you can possibly put the Sergeant-at-Arms in a position that
she, on your behalf, is supposed to find out - in advance of anyone coming to
the House at 2:00 tomorrow afternoon - whether or not they are going to sign
some kind of public bond or public undertaking to come into the gallery and not
create any kind of a disturbance. I do not know how that can function. The
standard that you have put there, that you say you might be able to resolve by
the end of the day, I cannot imagine a circumstance under which that could
possibly ever be met.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, at this point I am always reluctant to challenge
a Chair, but that is something else on which I would do a bit of research and
try to find a way to do it properly. I am not in a position to do it right now,
but I would give notice that I intend to challenge the Chair and the authority
of the Chair with respect to this issue and have it put to a vote of this
Legislature so that all of us, as members, can stand on whether or not we think
this is an appropriate action that you are unilaterally now suggesting that you
are taking on our behalf.
In the interim, I am so personally offended by it in terms of thinking it is
improper, unwarranted - there is an old expression that you can sometimes swat a
fly with a sledgehammer. I think that is where we are, Mr. Speaker, very much
so. It has been described before, by other interveners, that you have gone ten
or twelve steps down the road when the first three or four baby steps have not
even been taken. I think this is extreme.
I can tell you, as one member in the House, I will go and research how we can
formally and appropriately challenge the Chair; but if this stands, I can tell
you, as one member, I will not be here participating in this Legislature under
that ruling by yourself as the Chair. It will not happen, and I certainly will
not be participating any further today. Even though I was to be a speaker, I
will reserve my right to speak for some point in the future when we are
operating under more of a democratic, open House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.
I will listen to hear what your comments are, and then I will withdraw from
the Legislature because I believe this is extreme and it is well beyond what
should be done.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member will know that, once a ruling is made on a point of order, you
cannot rise on a point of privilege to argue the same matter.
The Chair has listened to the presentations and the Chair now calls Orders of
the Day.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 1, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of
the government, commonly referred to as the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 has been called.
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the budget for my department this year, we have put
forward a number of initiatives, very positive initiatives. One of those is new
funding for provincial parks. As all members of the House would agree, in recent
years the state of our provincial parks has declined considerably. There has
been a need for upgrades at our provincial parks and we are addressing that by
putting $250,000 into our provincial parks, which will be the first of a number
of increases put forward by this government to improve the provincial park
system.
There are only three parks remaining in the Province without comfort
stations. There are eight without dumping stations. One of the provincial parks
this year, Mr. Speaker, will get both. Last year, we improved and replaced a
number of picnic tables and fireplace installations. We have also begun to put
new camping lots at the Butterpot Provincial Park in an effort to increase the
visitorship at that park, which is generally full to its maximum.
Mr. Speaker, the previous Administration made a commitment in 1997, when they
privatized more than half of the remaining provincial parks, which was a second
effort by the previous Administration to privatize provincial parks in this
Province, which this party very strongly opposed. There are only thirteen
camping parks remaining in the Province. When the previous Administration
decided to privatize provincial parks in 1997, they made a commitment to put $1
million a year into the upgrading of the thirteen remaining provincial parks or
camping parks. That did not happen. In fact, at no time since 1997 has the
previous Administration put forward a strong effort to improve the provincial
parks and the infrastructure at those parks. We are addressing that in this year's
Budget. We have taken steps. We recognize the value of the thirteen remaining
parks. We recognize the value, not only for our local visitors, but for
tourists. In an effort to address that, the money is put forward. Next year, we
will look at the next priority in putting in place a comfort station, perhaps a
dumping station in another park. We will continue that until all of our
provincial parks, all of the camping parks are at a national standard, a
standard that the people of this Province and this government can be proud of.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to improving the parks this year, I will say that
last year, despite the fact that tourism in the Province was down slightly,
tourism in Atlantic Canada was down, the visitorship' to provincial parks
in the other Atlantic provinces was down significantly, we have held our own in
the Province. So, there is a demand in this Province for people to visit our
parks, most especially the tourists, and we recognize that.
In addition to money for provincial parks, the $250,000 that we put forward
to address the provincial parks issue in this year's Budget, we have also put
$300,000 forward to address climate change. The $300,000 that we are putting
forward to address climate change is an indication of this government's desire
to address climate change in this Province. We can see the severe changes in
weather conditions, weather patterns throughout the Province. We need to do some
research to find out how that is going to affect us, not only today, how it is
affecting our resources such as the forestry, our fishery and other resources,
but how it is going to affect us ten years from now, fifteen from now. We need
to determine so that we can plan ahead to best utilize the resources that we
have in this Province. The only way to do that is to put the money into that
file, which the previous Administration again has not put any money into the
climate change file. We have taken action on that file.
We are also signing, this week, a Memorandum of Understanding with the
federal government on the climate change initiatives, an agreement between this
Province and the federal government on how we can jointly address and focus on
climate change initiatives. With the recent federal Budget putting aside funding
in the range of about $250 million a year on a national basis, that is funding
that we believe we can go after. We believe there is money that we can attract
to this Province for initiatives such as green energy, hydro development
projects, such as the Lower Churchill, wind energy projects and other green
energy projects, such as geothermal.
We are looking at those projects. We are going to put a very strong focus in
on attracting some of that federal funding to this Province to advance our
Climate Change Action Plan in the Province. On that, we have already done a
number of initiatives in the Province. We have looked at advancing the energy
efficiency in a number of hospitals, schools and government buildings as a
partnership between our department and the Department of Transportation and
Works. There have been a number of upgrades at government buildings, schools and
so on throughout the recent years. We are also looking at ways to improve energy
efficiency within government buildings and we have taken on measures such as
investigating wind energy projects and geothermal energy projects. We have
entered into agreements with the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premiers on a regional Climate Change Action Plan. In addition to that, we are
going to be announcing our provincial Climate Change Action Plan and how we
intend to focus on climate change within the coming weeks.
There are a number of considerations with climate change, Mr. Speaker, in how
we address climate change in this Province. We have just recently appointed the
former Deputy Minister of Environment and Conservation, Deputy Minister Paul
Dean, to a special project climate change. His focus, and part of the focus of
this government and my department, will be on looking at ways that this
government can improve its record and improve energy efficiency, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions on a provincial basis. We have recently introduced
legislation and amendments to regulations on air emissions in the Province
which, while it will focus mainly on particulate matter and CO 2 emissions,
sulphur emissions, we are also looking at emission of greenhouse gases in the
Province and how we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases.
Recently, we have made changes to other regulations within the Province. We
are going to be bringing in new regulations on pesticides, for example, on
halocarbons within the Province and how we can address those issues as well to
better protect the environment in this Province. This government is committed to
protecting the environment and to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and dealing
with the issue of climate change in the Province.
We have also put new money aside in this year's Budget, as well, for the
Institute for Biodiversity and environmental science in Corner Brook. As well,
we put money into the concept of an Environmental Centre of Excellence in Corner
Brook and we will be opening a new wildlife lab in Corner Brook. We are focusing
on Corner Brook as a centre of excellence for environmental studies. We will be
partnering with the educational institutions in Corner Brook on how we can work
together and partner to advance that concept. Part of the Institute for
Biodiversity and environmental science will be integrated into the educational
institutions in Corner Brook in addition to the Environmental Centre of
Excellence. The new lab will be incorporated into the Grenfell College in Corner
Brook. It will be accessible to the students at the Grenfell College. We are
committed, Mr. Speaker, in making Corner Brook an environmental centre of
excellence as well. We have taken steps in recent months to make that a reality
and we are working towards that goal.
As well, as part of the Budget this year, Mr. Speaker, we have put money
towards caribou surveys in Labrador. That came out of the Trans Labrador Highway
environmental impact statement and environmental assessment. Part of that
environmental assessment called for caribou monitoring of the Mealy Mountain
herd, which is an endangered caribou herd. We put the money into that this year
for collaring, for surveys, for helicopter time and we are committed as well to
carrying through on the recommendations of the environmental assessment on the
Trans Labrador Highway and in the Trans Labrador Highway itself. Mr. Speaker,
we, in addition to that, recognize that there is a concern on the Island with
caribou populations. The numbers for the big game hunt will be released later on
this month - I am sorry, the month of May.
We are looking at increasing quotas for moose. The moose populations have
remained relatively stable in the Province. There has been some decline in some
areas but, overall, the moose populations have remained relatively stable. There
will be an increase in a couple of areas. Caribou populations on the other hand,
Mr. Speaker - and we are not certain yet as to why, but caribou populations in
the Province have faced a steep decline in recent years. That is a concern that
we have. It is huge concern, not only for government but for the outfitting
industry, in attracting non-resident hunters, which is a big boost for the local
economy, especially in a number of rural areas. We are studying why the caribou
populations have declined. Part of the Budget last year, and part of the Budget
again this year, we have put funding and a focus on looking at our big game
populations.
We have to ascertain as to why caribou populations are on a decline
throughout the Island portion of the Province, why there is a greater calf
mortality rate, the effects of coyote predation on caribou, the effects, Mr.
Speaker, of why there is a low recruitment rate, why there are less caribou
being calved. The reasons for the caribou decline, we are unsure at this point,
but we have to find out whether decreasing the allocation of caribou this year
is the right decision, whether we should increase it in certain areas and focus
on older caribou as a way of controlling the population and trying to recruit
more caribou. Until we have the science and have very firm information as to why
the caribou populations have declined, we are not able to make those decisions
in a scientific way. We are focusing on that in this year's Budget as well,
Mr. Speaker.
Overall, this year's Budget has been a very positive Budget for the people
of this Province. Last year we had a difficult Budget by all agreement
throughout the Province. We had to take measures last year to address the fiscal
realities in the Province. There are a number of changes from last year to this
year including better management by this Administration of the Province's
finances, including increased oil revenues which was a huge boost to the
Province, and the hope that we will get the agreement with the federal
government on the Atlantic Accord which will put huge revenue into this Province
as well. All of those things in mind, this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, we have
been able to lighten up, so to speak. We have been able to make some very
positive announcements and put forward a very positive Budget that, I think, is
recognized by the people throughout the Province as being a positive Budget,
that is recognized as well by the financial institutions and so on, as being a
very positive Budget. Still, while loosening the purse strings so to speak, we
have maintained our ability to control the finances and to do the things that
have to be done to protect the financial integrity of this Province for future
generations.
On that, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this year's Budget, and
I will take this opportunity, again, to say that I am very pleased that my
department was able to put forward a budget without huge cuts, without any
layoffs. I am very pleased to speak to the Budget this year again, Mr. Speaker,
and thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today and speak to the
Budget. There are several issues I would like to raise, several things that were
approved in the Budget.
I would like to start off by saying that this government, in its first year
of providing services to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, has,
effectively, half the deficit, from almost $1 billion the previous year to were
are now forecasting $500 million for the next fiscal year. That has been done,
Mr. Speaker, with no new taxes except for increases in cigarettes and tobacco.
There were a number of items approved in the Budget that I would like to
speak to today. I will not speak to all of the new initiatives in the Budget,
but there are a few I have singled out that are of interest to me and also to my
constituents.
The first one I would like to speak to is the additional $1 million for
tourism marketing. I complement the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation
on this initiative. I am sure we have all had visitors from away, and, of
course, people who visit Newfoundland absolutely fall in love with our Province
and many are eager to return. I know, when I worked in the public service,
anytime that we had a convention or we had meetings or a conference here in
Newfoundland, the number of people attending would far exceed those who would
attend when it was held in other jurisdictions. Again, the $1 million will
provide a lot of benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would also like to speak to the additional $160,000 that is going to be
provided to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council. I have been familiar
with that organization for a number of years. They do good work and to provide
them with additional funding to continue on with their initiatives is a good
initiative.
Also, there is a $1.3 billion dollar commitment for the Provincial Training
Centre. In my District of Topsail there are a lot of young families, young
people, who are very sports oriented, and many of my constituents have
complemented us on the $1.3 million commitment for the Provincial Training
Centre.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to move to the Department of Transportation
and Works. There is $33 million approved for provincial roads. I think most of
us who have driven around this Province realize that additional work needs to be
done on our highways especially if we are to attract the tourism group that we
would like to attract. Also, there is $40 million for Phase III of the
Trans-Labrador Highway, as well as $7 million for refit and maintenance of the
ferries.
There is one item budgeted for under the Department of Transportation and
Works. It is not a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes the best initiatives
are the ones that do not cost an awful lot. This is $500,000 for a provincial
vessel replacement strategy for the marine vessels in the Department of Works,
Services and Transportation.
Many people around this Province do not realize that we spend quite a
significant amount of money on our marine vessels and the services provided by
our ferries. In fact, I think, Mr. Speaker, speaking from memory, it is about
$50 million. This money has been spent over the years without any strategy, no
long-term plan. Every year we are putting more and more money into our
provincial ferry system with really no strategy, and I think it is a very good
idea to spend this money to devise a provincial vessel replacement plan.
In the area of the Department of Environment, there are a few initiatives
there that I would like to speak to. There is $1 million budgeted to complete
the clean-up of the contamination of the former military site at St. Anthony. I
think this is something, Mr. Speaker, that we will have to address in future
years. There are quite a few contaminated sites around the Province. I think
that the most recent estimate to clean-up all the contaminated sites around the
Province is somewhere in the vicinity of $30 to $40 million dollars. We are
starting to make inroads in that regard.
In the Department of Municipal Affairs, funding has been provided under the
Multi-Year Capital Works Program. In the Department of Natural Resources, $4
million in new agricultural initiatives. As someone who enjoys very much working
on a farm and in the garden, I compliment the minister on this initiative.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to move to the Department of Education. We all
know that over the last number of years there has been insufficient money put
into our schools to really keep them up to scratch. We have seen many articles
in the media in recent weeks regarding the infrastructure of the schools and
leaks in the roofs, things of that nature. Twenty-six million dollars has been
committed by this government to improve capital infrastructure. I realize, Mr.
Speaker, that will not cure all the ills but at least it is a start.
There is also funding there similar to the vessel replacement plan. There is
also funding provided in the Budget for long-term planning in the area of
capital infrastructure and education. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good
idea because what governments tend to do or have tended to do in the past is put
significant amounts of money into certain programs hoping that at the end of the
day they will achieve some results. The focus now is that we would put in place
a long-term plan, some sort of strategy, and decide where we would like to go in
the future, how much it is going to cost us. The $250,000 for a long-term
planning strategy for capital infrastructure in the Department of Education is
an excellent idea.
We all know, too, Mr. Speaker, that deferred maintenance in the schools over
the last number of years has not worked. We have to keep our schools up to
scratch because, if you do not do your maintenance, they just deteriorate and
deteriorate and deteriorate and, in the long term, you effectively spend more
money in keeping your buildings up to par.
Mr. Speaker, the same thing with the roads. There has been deferred
maintenance on our roads over the last number of years. I think we have all come
to the realization that, while it may save money in the short term, really in
the long term we pay an even greater price to bring our roads back up to
scratch. So, at this point in time, what we are trying to do is bring our
infrastructure back up to a certain acceptable standard and also have plans in
place so that in the future we will be able to use our plans to determine
exactly where we want to go.
One of the other areas in education that I was quite pleased to see is the $1
million that was approved for physical education equipment. We all know that our
children are becoming heavier than they were in the past; that there is, you
know, less attention, that kids are spending less time in physical education.
I was very interested this morning - I do not know if other people heard the
article on CBC Radio, but they were interviewing a principal from a school at
Beachy Cove and they had done a survey; I believe it was at Christmas. They
wanted to find out how many of the children had actually played outdoors over
the Christmas holidays. The number that came back - I cannot remember the exact
number, but it was less than 50 per cent - the number was really quite, quite
surprising.
Not to reflect back on the olden days, but I know when I was a child in
school, and also when my children were in school, much of the Christmas holiday
and much of the Easter holiday was spent outdoors, especially at Christmas. You
were out sliding, you were building a rink, and things of that nature. Well, it
seems now what is happening with the kids is that they are on the computer,
watching TV. They have DVD players, things of this nature, and, of course, there
is a tendency now for kids not to go outdoors. So, hopefully, this $1 million
for physical education equipment will be a help and will encourage children to
go outdoors and be more physically fit.
One of the issues - it is not only the fact that the children are getting
larger. When a child is larger they have a tendency not to participate in
physical activity, but there is a whole host of medical problems that are
contributed to by obesity, and these would be things like diabetes, heart
disease, things of that nature. Studies have shown that children who are obese
later in life stay obese; so, of course, what we are trying to do is change
children's lifestyle and try to get them on a healthier lifestyle.
One of the things that has been in the news lately, that I find quite
interesting - I am from a family where, especially on my mother's side, people
live long. My grandmother was 99 when she passed away, and last week my aunt
passed away and she was 101. I guess I have good genes in that many members of
my family live long lives.
Unfortunately, what the studies are predicting now is that our children will
probably not live as long as us because of their lack of physical activity,
their lifestyle, their health, things of that nature.
To continue on with issues in the Department of Education, the last time I
spoke in the House I referred to the White Paper on public post-secondary
education, and this Budget provides almost $15 million for initiatives relating
to the White Paper. As a mother of three children who are in university, I am
quite anxious to see the paper and also the initiatives for which the $15
million has been allocated. I would like also to refer to the continuing tuition
freeze which will be of help to all students in the Province.
The last thing under the Department of Education that I would like to refer
to is the commitment by government to put additional money into the Budget to
reduce the age of our school bus fleet.
The next area I would like to move to is the Department of Health. There are
a number of initiatives there which are very excellent initiatives. New funding
has been provided, and I would like to comment on some of those.
There is an additional $7 million provided in the drug plan for twenty-five
new drugs. That drug plan now, the government spends well over $100 million on
drugs for two drug plans. One is called the indigent drug plan and the other is
the seniors drug plan. I would like to say that, compared to other
jurisdictions, our plan is not as rich or not as wealthy as the plans in other
jurisdictions which are,