April 20, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 19

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair is waiting until all visitors can find a spot in the visitors'

gallery.

Before we begin today's session, the Chair wishes again to welcome all

visitors to the public galleries. In doing so, I have to remind them that they

are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way, or show any approval or

disapproval of any proceedings in the House. On six occasions in this session,

including the sitting yesterday afternoon, the Chair has been obliged to suspend

the sitting due to disorder which originated in the galleries. On such matters,

the Chair, as presiding officer, has responsibility to maintain order and

decorum and, in doing so, has very few options.

The Standing Orders of this House are very clear. They are based on

tradition. It goes back many, many years; many, many decades. Any person who

misconducts himself or herself, or persons, shall be asked to leave the

galleries. As a last resort, the Speaker may ask that the galleries be cleared

and the House be suspended until the Sergeant-at-Arms is satisfied the House

conducts its proceedings in a manner consistent with our rules on order and

decorum.

Finally, as a last resort, the Speaker can, as has happened on several

occasions in the past in this House, including the last House of Assembly, the

44 th Assembly, the Speaker can have the galleries cleared and cause

the doors to be locked for the balance of the sitting day.

The Speaker does not do these things without due consideration. I am most

reluctant to bar any person or persons; however, in this regard, all visitors

are asked for their co-operation. Again today I ask all visitors to refrain from

participation in any way that might be seen as approval or disapproval of

anything that is said, either by the way of asking of questions or in responses

that might come from the government side of the House.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a matter of urgent public importance. Normally when a member

says that, the member is referring to Standing Order 36, which is the

adjournment of the House for an emergency debate. However, the nature of my

request at this time is not to do that but to recognize that the House of

Assembly, as master of its own proceedings, has the right to address a matter of

urgent public importance in any way that it chooses.

The specific request - and I have given notice to the Government House Leader

and to the Official Opposition of this request so that they could consider and

hopefully agree to this request and have time to think about it - is that the

Leader of the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees be given

leave to address this House, outside the bar of the House, as is the

parliamentary procedure, to address the issue of the public service strike on

behalf of both the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees and

CUPE.

We are tomorrow entering into the third week, the twenty-first day, of the

legal public sector strike, and it has been, up to this point, with considerable

strain on public services, generally speaking, a very straightforward and

civilized matter with bargaining carrying on intermittently. We are, at this

point, according to the statements made yesterday, at a point where, in the

words of the Premier, that things are so far apart that there is no possibility

of any negotiated settlement.

I am informed that today at about 1:00 p.m. a new offer and position from the

union's side has been presented to the government, or was to be presented to

the government, and there is a desire on the part of the Newfoundland

Association of Public and Private Employees' leadership to negotiate and

provide a solution that would be acceptable to government and to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The request from Mr. Leo Puddister to address the House is part of an earnest

and sincere attempt to both explain the current situation and to bring an end to

this dispute and to return public services to normal in the Province.

In terms of precedent, Mr. Speaker, we do have precedent of strangers, as

they are known in parliamentary terms, addressing the House in historical times.

The first time I recall such an event in this House was the appearance of Mr.

John Shaheen, who was before the bar of the House as a witness who spoke and

answered questions. The House, of course, as part of its historic privileges,

has the right to summon any individual in the jurisdiction before the bar of the

House to speak to the House. Of course, there is a long-standing tradition of

offering, in a different context, distinguished visitors such as prime ministers

or other premiers, to address the House and in the House of Commons,

international leadership. This is not that type of category. This is more along

the lines of the House using its privileges to - in this case at the request,

but with the powers in authority of the House, to allow an individual to address

the House on a matter of urgent public concern.

I would urge all hon. members to consider this, not as an attempt to have a

forum, I mean this individual has access to public forum in the media on a

regular basis, as do members of this House. But, given the nature of the public

sector strike, the fact that it has gone on for just about three weeks, the fact

that at least in the government's view there is a significant impasse - which

we are told by the leadership of NAPE, is not an impasse from their point of

view. In fact, they have a new position that has been presented to the

government. So, the government knows what it is, but to address all members of

the House in this extraordinary, admittedly extraordinary and unusual way, but

given the nature of the circumstance, given the nature that in the past public

sector strikes have led, at certain points, to major disruptions of peace and

order in the Province, and given the fact that we do want to avoid any

possibility that such an event might occur in the current circumstances and as a

consequence of exhausting every possible means to bring some rationality to the

current circumstances, it seems to me that the request is indeed an earnest and

sincere attempt to bring an end to this dispute.

I ask all hon. members to consider this request seriously, and that such an

event could occur later this afternoon, at an appropriate time. If there is the

consent of the House, I think the appropriate action would be for the House

Leaders, and myself, to meet with you, the Speaker, to discuss how it might be

done. The request is for, essentially, ten minutes, whether it requires the

suspension of the normal rules of the House, that is something that could be

discussed with you, Mr. Speaker, if there is agreement for this procedure. As I

say, it is extremely unusual, but we are dealing with a matter of, what I would

call, urgent public importance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to make a few comments with respect to the point of order

raised and the request made. Unfortunately, we are in the twentieth day, soon to

be the twenty-first day of - what in our view - is a totally unnecessary strike.

We have had the people of the Province subject to paid advertising campaigns

from both sides, both print, radio and television. All three, I guess, not both.

We have had a disruption of services in the Province, now into the end of its

third week, Mr. Speaker. We have had the fact that the Premier of the Province

and the leader of the government continuing to refuse to speak directly to the

elected leadership of the unions, and publicly stating so.

I believe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New

Democratic Party, has made a very sensible request on behalf of the main

spokesperson for the 20,000 unionized public employees who are on the streets

and are not providing services. If our elected leader will not go talk to them,

why won't we have their elected leader come and speak to all of us, and

through the auspices of this House, speak to everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador who has access to television and through the broadcast of the

particular events that occur in this Legislature? I take it to be a very serious

request. I take it to be an opportunity for us to have the open debate which,

right now, may lead to breaking this log jam and enabling all of us to put aside

whatever it is that is causing the difference and causing this totally

unnecessary strike to drag on and on with no end in sight; particularly with the

comments that are in the media today from the Premier, as the elected leader of

the government, from yesterday, saying that he sees no prospect for an end to

this strike, and the elected leaders of the unionized public workers and public

employees saying that they see a very easy and obvious end to this particular

dispute.

I support the request fully and would hope that maybe with the consent of the

House Leader, as referenced by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that you

might consider recess at some point in these proceedings, consider the request

seriously, and see if we can arrange for it later today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the request, and government appreciates the request. We should

also understand that it is an unusual one. Based upon my information, I think

there has been twice in the last thirty-three years or thirty-four years: John

Shaheen, I believe, addressed the House, when the House requested that he come

before the Assembly to deal with issues related to the Come By Chance Oil

Refinery, and the debacle associated with that refinery and the financing of

that refinery at the time.

My understanding, as well, is that the last time it happened was during the

Meech Lake Accord, if I am not mistaken, when some members were actually here in

the House - I was not at the time - where the Prime Minister of the country

actually addressed the Assembly, all members, on a matter of grave public but

obviously national importance.

The request, in our view, is not timely and we will not be supporting it for

these reasons: Number one, that the offer that the member has alluded to has not

been seen by government as of yet, and that the House of Assembly is not a forum

for open negotiation between two parties. It does not inhibit or limit the

ability of any member in this place to discuss, debate, question, prod or poke

government about the issues that are outstanding, and in this case issues that

are outstanding that are particular and peculiar to the public service strike.

Secondly, and members are aware on both sides of the House, the Minister of

Labour is making a statement this afternoon under the Orders of the Day, under

Ministerial Statements, that deals specifically with this issue. She has also,

prior to this House and prior to this strike, prior to the meeting on the front

steps of CUPE and NAPE workers, out standing, the public service strike - that

she herself has spoken to the leadership of NAPE prior to that rally taking

place on the front steps of the Confederation Building.

We will not be supporting the request, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker, in ruling on the point of order, really it

doesn't qualify as a point of order, as such. However, the Speaker could

facilitate a meeting and could make an arrangement between the House Leaders.

Certainly the Speaker's Office is available to do that on any issue at any

time. Since there is a lack of consent on behalf of the governing side of the

House, the Speaker does not, at this particular time, see any merit in trying to

convene a meeting between House Leaders to resolve this particular issue.

However, if a point should arise at which there is an agreement between House

Leaders to convene on that particular matter, then the Speaker is, by all means,

ready to facilitate any dialogue that might occur.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time on a point of personal privilege on behalf of myself and

on behalf of all members of the official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we are here this afternoon thanks only to the good graces of

your personal intervention. There are only a few important privileges that any

of us, as MHAs, have. One of them is the freedom of speech. The second, of

course, is to access the place where we need to do our job, which is right here.

Despite what some people might think, this is the people's House and we are

representatives of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we came to this building today, and I mean the

House and the precincts of this House where we have our offices, fully intent

upon doing our jobs. Somebody gave someone directions that we were not to enter

this building. Who gave those directions, I do not know. I can assure you it

certainly was not any striker in this Province or any union member. We gained

access to the civil servants entrance of this building quite freely and without

harassment or interference from anyone, but the door was locked. I made a

personal request to the person inside of the door, not once but three times, to

allow myself and the other members of the Official Opposition to get into this

building so we could do our job, and I was denied. Three times.

Mr. Speaker, it is only because of the personal intervention of yourself,

when I placed a phone call to you, that you yourself came to the door and

allowed us to enter this building. That is totally and absolutely unacceptable

to the members here. It is an absolute breach of our privileges, and it is an

insult to the people of this Province that their representatives cannot come

here to go to work.

I do not know who is in charge of security of this building, and I doubt very

much that any individual outside involved with the security of this building

took it upon himself or herself to make that decision. Someone gave someone

instructions that there was to be no access to this building. That is totally

unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, our privileges, I would submit, have been breached. I

would request that the Chair rule on the fact that it is, indeed, a breach of

our privileges to have access to this building, to this Chamber, and to the

precincts of this House where we do our jobs, or try to do our jobs. Mr.

Speaker, we would like assurances that this is never to happen again. This is

absolutely insulting and unacceptable.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the question of privilege raised by the Opposition

House Leader. When the Member for Labrador West and I arrived to come to the

session of the House this afternoon, the door was locked. There was no one

inside. There was no way of getting in the door without the personal call that I

made to your office to gain access to the precincts of our House of Assembly.

When I saw you come out, the door was actually opened by police officers,

which I find also to be contrary to the privileges of Parliament. In fact, Beauchesne

6 th Edition refers to the question of police within the precincts

of Parliament, and I would consider the entrance to the Parliamentary - the

access that we have, as members, to get from outside to here - as part of the

precincts of Parliament, in the absence of a separate entrance to here.

The police came to what is known as the civil service entrance, the security

entrance here, and it was police officers who opened the door and gave access to

certain people; that is, myself and the Member for Labrador West and two staff

members and certain others, including one member of the press, but it was only

through that action and my call to your office that access was even obtained.

Page 21, 72 of Beauchesne says, "It is still not clear whether

the House of Commons regards as contempt the presence of members of federal,

provincial or local police forces within the precincts of Parliament without the

consent of the Speaker."

Now, we have an unusual circumstance here where, on occasion, as an honourary

situation, a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary will sit in the place

of the Sergeant-at-Arms, but I do not think in those circumstances they are

acting as a police officer but rather as an officer of this House, which is a

very different matter. They are not here responding as part of the police

forces.

The paragraph, 72, goes on to say, "The Standing Committee on

Privileges and Elections found in 1973 that it was well established that

outside police forces should not enter the precincts without permission', but

failed to establish such an entry as a contempt."

Now, we are not dealing with contempt of Parliament or contempt of the House

of Assembly here. We are dealing with the presence of police forces preventing

or alternatively admitting people to the precincts of Parliament.

This is totally unacceptable for a Parliament who has its long-standing

privileges going back many, many centuries. It is very important that you, as

Speaker, and that the House in general, uphold these principles of Parliament. I

would ask and support the request of the Official Opposition, the Opposition

House Leader, that you conduct an investigation into this, find out what orders

were given, and I ask you to report back to the House as to what the

circumstances are in your ruling, as to its acceptability, and to urge you to

find a way to ensure that members of this House have access to the precincts of

this House, unobstructed.

The obstructions that we are talking about were not obstructions of any

public sector workers on strike, or picketers. The obstructions were

obstructions of a locked door, apparently under the control of police forces,

not this House of Assembly.

I would ask you to rule on that very significant and important privilege of

members of this House.

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, let me say in the first instance that we completely agree with

the point of privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader. I will say this:

If one member in this Legislature is blocked from getting into the precincts of

the House, and the precincts of the House as defined by former governments - and

I recall having this conversation, the Leader of the NDP and I, in 1999, when

the precincts were defined for this House during the nurses' strike, which was

the entrance right there, not the entrance to the doorway but the entrance to

the precincts was defined then, because there were some 140 to 150 police

officers out in the lobby at the time. I believe the member and the Leader for

the NDP would acknowledge and recognize that.

If one member is blocked from getting into this Legislature, for any reason,

then it is not only that member's privileges that have been breached but it

has been all of our privileges that have been breached, each and every one of

us. That is why, on that premise, Mr. Speaker, we agree wholeheartedly with the

Opposition.

I will say, Mr. Speaker - and it is just the nature of the situation and the

circumstances and the environment that we are working in - not all members had

the luxury of coming in unobstructed today. Maybe if the strike continues, that

may continue, but members did get here and that is important. By whatever means

necessary, members arrived and are here in this Legislature today.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you, with absolute confidence and knowledge,

that the Opposition House Leader said somebody has ordered that the Opposition

not come in. I can assure him, and I can assure all members of this House, and

each and every member of the public, that no such order was issued by any member

in this government, by the Premier, by the Minister of Finance, by myself as

Government House Leader, or by anybody. I am equally disturbed, and all members

in this House are equally disturbed, to find out that happened to the Opposition

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me also say this: While we may disagree on issues in

this Legislature, and there will be times that we do agree, there is one thing

that you will find from my point of view and members opposite: Even if we

disagree, we will be your biggest advocates to get in this House so that you can

absolutely disagree with us if you feel it necessary.

Mr. Speaker, let me say finally to you that the request made, the point of

privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader, supported by the Leader of the

NDP, and absolutely, unequivocally and unqualified support from the government,

and in my capacity communicating that to you, in the Chair, that we too would

like to see what the situation was that arose. We spoke about this earlier - all

members, myself and the Opposition House Leader - that we too would like to see

what transpired, and understand what transpired, so that no member, in his or

her capacity, acting as a member, is not able to do so because of a situation

that occurred today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank the hon. members for their contribution to

the discussion. I do feel, however, before I say that I am going to take this

matter under advisement and come back, I should make a few comments.

One, to say that the Speaker accepts the responsibility for the security to

the House and to the immediate precincts around the House. That is part of the

mandate that is given to the Speaker of the House.

I want to say as well that any person or persons who locked the doors today

were not operating on instructions from the Speaker. Nor were they operating on

any instructions from any of the administrative team or the government of the

day. Certainly there is no direction that was given to the Speaker for these

matters to occur, and if they were given the Speaker would not accept them.

Consequently, what I am saying to you is that when it comes to the rights of

members, I would like to correct - not correct - say to the Opposition House

Leader, he mentioned it was a point of personal privilege. If he reads Marleau,

he will find that it really qualifies as a point of parliamentary privilege,

which is a different thing all together. It is a higher category than personal

privilege.

I quote for members a case that comes out of Ontario, and it was heard before

Justice Winkler in 1996. I quote some things from that so people will know where

I am coming from. He says, "There was a strong prima facie case in that

obstruction of the Members of the Legislative Assembly..." - here called

the House of Assembly - "...constituted a breach of parliamentary

privilege. Such an interference with legislative function caused irreparable

harm which could not be remedied in damages."

Further in this judgement it is made quite clear, and it says, "First,

that the obstruction of members of the legislature constitutes a breach of

parliamentary privilege."

There are other references that the Speaker will refer to; however, legal

cases and cases in other provinces clearly indicate that in this particular

case, while the Chair will carry out an investigation as to what happened, the

Chair is of the opinion that a serious matter occurred and that investigation is

indeed warranted.

The Chair will come back to all hon. members. I should say that the hon.

members who spoke, there were members on all sides of the House today: from the

government side, who had difficulty getting in; from the Opposition side,

including members of the New Democratic Party.

I have spoken to the Opposition Leader on this matter earlier, and also to

the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The Chair apologizes for any

inconvenience; however, the Chair will carry out an investigation to ascertain

exactly what happened in this circumstance.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by members, I have one statement and that is the

Member for Terra Nova.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mrs. Jean Chatman of Charlottetown for

receiving the Newfoundland and Labrador Entrepreneur of the Year Award from

Memorial University's Faculty of Business on March 30, 2004.

Mrs. Chatman is the owner of Chatman's Bakery which started twenty-five

years ago to supply baked goods to Terra Nova National Park. During that time,

through determination, hard work and commitment, Mrs. Chatman has grown her

business tremendously, now supplying baked goods to fifty-five grocery stores

throughout Atlantic Canada.

This business has grown into a family affair, as two of Mrs. Chatman's

daughters are also involved in the management and operation of the bakery.

Mr. Speaker, Jean Chatman and Chatman's Bakery are an example of the

entrepreneurial spirit that is alive and well in rural Newfoundland and Labrador

where hard work and dedication are a way of life.

I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations to Mrs.

Chatman on being named Entrepreneur of the Year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform my hon.

colleagues that, as Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency, I will

instruct the Agency's mediators to conduct exploratory talks with government

and union negotiators to determine if there is any basis for a settlement in the

current public sector dispute.

The public sector dispute is now into its twentieth day. I have been closely

monitoring this situation, including the past several days, during which time

there have been repeated attempts by the parties to negotiate a settlement. I

have also noted, Mr. Speaker, that both sides have clearly stated their desire

to end this dispute. Despite that, they have been unable to reach a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Agency has a mandate and responsibility to

provide conciliation and mediation assistance to all parties during contract

negotiations. This applies to both public and private sectors in this Province.

In previous circumstances the assistance of mediators has proven beneficial.

Mr. Speaker, under my instruction, Labour Relations mediators will contact

the parties involved to explore with them any common ground that may still

remain and could result in a negotiated settlement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I thank the hon. minister for a copy of the statement about

ten minutes before the House opened.

I guess awhile ago this would have been great news, wonderful news, a good

news story, but I think everybody in the Province now sees it for what it is

really all about; too little, too late.

I think the message that is coming out loud and clear in this Province is

that the Premier needs to get back to the bargaining table. It seems the people

who are negotiating for government do not have any authority, no authority

whatsoever to be able to negotiate. Not even the senior negotiator, the Minister

of Finance and President of Treasury Board, has no mandate whatsoever to

negotiate. I think it is very, very clear that the only person in this Province

who can resolve this situation is the Premier, and if the Premier is not going

to get back at the table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: - then the part-time Minister of Labour is just wasting her

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggested this some time ago as a possibility of getting a negotiated

settlement. It was not taken up, and last weekend we had a bit of charade with

no real commitment by the government to resolve this. I had hoped that this

might work, but I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the atmosphere has been

poisoned by the Premier's comments yesterday, that he sees no possibility of a

negotiated settlement. I hope, despite that, that the officials of the minister

will be able to follow up on requests that have been made in the past by the

leadership unions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - to have mediators involved and possibility reach a

solution.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, before I get to questions directly related today

to the strike, I would like to ask the Premier a couple of questions with

respect to what is happening in the Legislature and the public galleries today.

We are aware, and I can tell by looking around because I have been here for

fifteen years, that the public galleries today are largely occupied by political

staff, which is probably understandable, and management staff, which is not at

all understandable, who, we understand, have been ordered here today by the

government. Supposedly, Mr. Speaker, these staff are in this building, having

crossed picket lines, like we did, because they are providing some essential

services and there is something that they should be doing on behalf of the

government. I am not sure that sitting in the gallery, at the behest of the

government, is one of those essential duties. Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, members of

the general public are being denied access. They are being told outside that

they cannot come to the public galleries because it is full. I just counted

twenty-eight empty seats that are already here.

The question for the Premier is this: Who ordered these people to be in the

galleries today? Would he not agree now that if they are here, management

personnel, supposedly providing essential services, which is why they crossed

the picket line, that won't he let them go back to work? Could we agree to

recess for ten minutes and let some members of the general public, who might

like to enter and have been denied, come to this gallery if they choose to do

so, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, there are lots of

empty seats in the galleries of this Chamber. I can indicate to members present

that I certainly did not order anybody into this House today. As the Leader of

the Opposition knows, and government members know, lots of times employees of

government do actually sit in the galleries and observe the proceedings that go

on here. This is very normal.

I do remember, of course, during the Voisey's Bay debate, when government

blocked the galleries and those particular circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Of course, the hon. gentleman was Premier at that

particular point in time and he would remember it.

There are lots of seats, and the public are certainly more than welcome to

come in and occupy these seats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Premier would take it as a

serious issue. The question, seriously, is this: There are people outside who

tried to enter the galleries today and were told that there was no space

available. That is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker. All of us can look around and

see that there is space available and that there are people in these galleries,

we all understand political staff, who have never been here before, who are here

to provide essential services as management personnel and surely goodness, the

Premier is not going to suggest that it is absolutely essential that they sit in

the galleries. They have been here for half-an-hour already, Mr. Speaker, while

services to the people of the Province go unattended to.

Will he agree, as

an act of good faith, to a recess for a few minutes to let

the management personnel go back to work and provide the essential services,

which is all that is being provided to the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to finish his question.

MR. GRIMES: - and let those who might want to come into the galleries

enter the gallery, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there are some people outside this Chamber who want to occupy the

twenty-eight seats that are available in this Chamber and for some reason they

are not being let in and you want to recess to allow them to come in to fill

these seats, absolutely, let's recess and allow them to come in.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair seeks direction from the House Leaders. It is not

required that the House recess in order for visitors to enter the public

galleries. Visitors can enter and leave as they wish at any time. That is not a

reason to recess the House. If there are visitors on the outside who wish to

come in, then they are free to come into this House at any time during the

proceedings, or they are free to leave.

However, if there is an obstruction, for example, if the doors are locked or

something like that, and if there is agreement to have a recess, then we can do

it. I seek direction from the Government House Leader and from the Opposition

House Leader.

The point of order raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, the point of order relates to the

question raised, that if in fact people are being told that there is on room and

they are not allowed in, then I think that would call for, if not a recess, a

suspension of the House until we can assure ourselves that in fact people are

not being prevented from entering. I think that question really should be

resolved.

I understand, and we all understand, that the public ought to have access to

this House just as members ought to have access to this House. We know that we

were denied and we understand that the people are being denied. We should recess

until that is cleared up.

MR. SPEAKER: If I could, I think there is consent that we would recess

the House probably for five minutes. We will stop the Question Period time and

continue it on the end of the time when we come back from the recess.

Before we go, I think we have a question raised by the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again, I appreciate the ruling and

appreciate the agreement to do it.

Because of the fact that you have to be very careful with the words of this

Premier, I ask again - because he talked about agreeing to a recess to only

allow the twenty-eight vacant seats to be filled - would the Premier agree that

any management or political staff that would like to go back to work are free to

go back to work at the same time, so that there might actually be a lot more

than twenty-eight seats available?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I respond with one word, Mr. Speaker: Absolutely!

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is agreement that we will recess the House. It

is now 2:15, the House will reconvene at 2:20, and it will be noted by the

ringing of the bells.

The House is now recessed until 2:20.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will resume the Question Period. The Chair has recorded the amount

of time that has expired as six minutes and fifty-eight seconds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is day twenty of a totally unnecessary strike, the biggest strike in the

history of the Province, and caused single-handedly by the Premier and his

government. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, publicly in the media, the Premier stated

that he does not see any possibility of reaching a negotiated settlement. I ask,

Mr. Speaker, is that still the Premier's position today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that statement was made yesterday based on, of course, what we

had before us; based on the negotiations that went on over a four day period,

headed by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, who

entered into good faith negotiations with the unions and made progress. He made

very good progress to move forward, however, reached a point when the union came

back to us and indicated that they wanted a signing bonus, which represented a

significant amount of money to the government.

As well, we are looking at a CPI bonus, which was in fact about $55 million

to $66 million on an annual basis to the treasury; as well as the other two

remaining issues that were outstanding. At that particular point in time I felt,

the minister felt, and the Cabinet felt, that we were too far apart to reach a

satisfactory negotiation and to reach a settlement. However, today, I am advised

by the Leader of the New Democratic Party that there is an offer which has been

presented, which is news to me, when I heard of it today. That an offer is now

being presented and has been presented to government. We will certainly have a

look at that offer and have an opportunity to either see it or discuss it. We

will certainly have a look at it.

As well, there is an initative today by the Minister of Labour with regard to

having mediators involved in the process on a preliminary basis to see if there

is any room to move forward. I am certainly encouraged by that and I look

forward to the offer that has been put forward to us by the union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure, again, that many people of the Province will take some hope -

hopefully not false hope, like the last several times with respect to possible

resumption of some negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is still basically this. The negotiations obviously

will end in failure, again, unless the Premier finally takes - and he laughs at

it, Mr. Speaker. He laughs at it. It is very serious. Some of his caucus members

are laughing at it, Mr. Speaker. It is a very serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, they will end in failure, again, unless he

finally takes the concessions off the table. This is clearly not about money.

The issue that has been talked about today - and the union leaders have always

said: We can settle the money if we can only get away from the concessions.

Mr. Speaker, in asking the Premier the question, let me remind him of this,

the sick leave issue in particular, the health care managers - and the Premier

should know this, the Minister of Health and Community Services should know

this, the President of Treasury Board should know it, if they do not - that any

one of the options offered publicly yesterday by the union, they would gladly

take. They told me when I was Labour Minister, they told me when I was Health

Minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- and they told me when I was Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this: Is he finally going to

take the sick leave concessions off the table and allow a deal to be negotiated

or is he going to continue to turn his back on any of the other options just

because it is not the one that he presented himself, personally?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition forgot to mention that when he was Minister

of Labour and Minister of Education and when he was part of the Wells government

that he participated in legislative wage freezes, legislative rollbacks and

cutting several thousands of jobs and delivering pink slips at Christmastime. He

failed to mention that. I think that is probably relevant information.

Mr. Speaker, because there has been a good-faith offer made by the union now,

which perhaps accepts our last proposal, I do not know, and if that is the case,

it would be most improper for me to conduct a negotiation with the Leader of the

Opposition at this particular point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, the Premier, as the leader of the government, would full

well know that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not elect him to live

in the past. They elected him for real leadership, a new approach and a bright

future, Mr. Speaker, which they have not seen any of in the first six months.

Mr. Speaker, a serious question again for the Premier: Is he now telling us,

in this Legislature, that he is going to stop going to the media and mocking

publicly the proposals put forward by the union in trying to reach an agreement

and that he is actually going to engage in some real, earnest, genuine

negotiations later today or is this just another ruse to try to buy some time

for some people while he gets back to an agenda of dictating to the workers what

it is they have to give up in order to satisfy him personally and his

government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am at a bit of a loss to understand exactly what the Leader of

the Opposition would like me to do. Does he want me involved? Does he not want

me involved? Does he want me to talk to the media? Does he not want me to talk

to the media?

When the Labour critic gets up, he talks about mediation being a waste of

time. Those are the words he used today: a waste of time. The Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi talks about mediation being a charade, when he was the one who

asked us to get involved in mediation. They are all over the place. Absolutely

everywhere. They are all over the place. We are doing our best. When the request

for mediation was made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we entered into

negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is interesting, the Member for Bellevue, who has a

very serious labour situation in his own district - whereby there are over 400

people's jobs at stake in his district, a very serious problem - he has not

even picked up the phone and called me about the problem in his district when

myself and the Minister of Fisheries are dealing with it and trying to correct

it. You should get concerned about your own district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of attacking the Member for Bellevue,

maybe the Premier would like to take the questions seriously and try to deal

with the absolute, total unnecessary chaos that is going on in the Province

today caused by him single-handedly, never mind dealing with other issues.

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks for your cooperation. There is a dialogue going across the

House which is not (inaudible) to the debate between the Leader of the

Opposition and the Premier.

The Leader of the Opposition, a moment to finish up your question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, rather than be sidetracked by issues that the government, at this

point, finds very amusing. They are laughing again, Mr. Speaker. The twentieth

day of a strike, and they find it very funny. They must be in a very funny mood

today because they have their friends and supporters looking at them instead of

members of the public who were denied just a little while ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: That might be why they are all smiles today. That might be

the real reason.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair again asks the Leader of the Opposition to finish his question. If

not, I will have to return the floor to the government side.

The Leader of the Opposition, about fifteen seconds.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the health boards in the last twenty-four

hours and they publicly stated they are having tremendous difficulty coping, and

that they would like to have more essential workers available.

Again, I would like to ask the Premier directly. How does he plan - and he

probably will not answer this question, Mr. Speaker - to deal with the plea from

Mr. Peddle and the health boards for more workers in the health care system to

help deal with the circumstance? Does he plan to bring available management

people into the gallery instead, like he has done today? And he still has them

here, Mr. Speaker. Two hours later he still has them sitting in the galleries,

when Mr. Peddle and the health boards are asking for much-needed help out in the

hospitals and the seniors' homes in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been mentioned that there are some areas of concern, and I feel that

there is an intention where an increase is needed there to ask the unions to

co-operate in increasing the number of essential workers so services can be

performed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, a question for the Premier.

Acknowledging that there is a request for more workers, because they are

having great difficulty coping. I think that was just acknowledged by the

President of Treasury Board; they understand that to be the circumstance. They

are essential in the gallery but not essential in our seniors' homes,

long-term care and the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: Is the government, in this negotiation

they are talking about today, going to follow the plea of Mr. Peddle, which is

to enter into a negotiation about possibly getting more essential workers

designated, which will only prolong the strike, see a continuation of reduced

services, and the agony continue for the people in the health care sector as

well as in education, or, are they going to go back to the bargaining table and

try to take the concessions out of the picture and settle the dispute by

agreement once and for all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gather from the Leader of the Opposition that he does not want those

services increased. That is what I gather from his question, that he would like

- it is our preferred choice to have negotiations settle this. Over the weekend

we exchanged five written proposals, from Thursday to Sunday, five written

proposals - I have eleven here - and others prior to March 31. We have had

proposals here, probably fifteen in total, approximately there, that showed a

change from our position on each particular one when we went back again. There

was a lapse. There was a lapse, I might add, Mr. Speaker, of eight days that we

did not get a response to the proposal. From Good Friday to the following

Saturday we waited. We waited for over eight days before we got a response to

the last proposal.

I did not know, Mr. Speaker, there was a proposal here in the House until the

Leader of the New Democratic Party indicated in the House today that there is

another proposal that came to us. Several minutes after he made that statement

in the House today, I had a message sent in to me that it just arrived at my

office now, after it was raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

We want to deal with this issue fairly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - we want to deal with it honestly, but it is difficult to

do when there is grandstanding and numerous things happening here that are not

conducive -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to good collective bargaining in the Province. They are

more interested in instigating starting a process than getting a solution to

this process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is getting to be a bit of a tired, here we go again; blame anybody else

except the government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the Premier, or if he has given up answering questions again

today, like he usually does, maybe to the President of Treasury Board, we do not

support choices that prolong the strike. The choice that he talked about, Mr.

Speaker, of designating more essential workers only guarantees that the strike

goes on and on, and people suffer and suffer, and do without the services that

they need.

Mr. Speaker, doesn't he understand, does the Premier understand or does the

President of Treasury Board understand, that under current legislation, if they

want more essential workers, which Mr. Peddle has called for, and he

acknowledges that they need, they he can get all the essential workers that they

need under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act today. Does he know that

or not? We are certainly not supporting more essential workers for the purpose

of prolonging a strike that has already gone on too long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we understand all the provisions of the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act. I would like to know from the Leader of the

Opposition, which one does he support? The one where they brought in legislation

to roll back collective agreements, or when they stood in this House, when he

was minister and my critic opposite, and read a statement to legislate people

back to work? The date was March 30, 1999. I could read it, Mr. Speaker: This

legislation provides for nurses to return to work and for government to put in

place a settlement.

The Leader of the Opposition, on numerous occasions, said: We will not

hesitate to legislate if the occasion arises.

I do not know where they are. They are all over the map. They do not know

what they want to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to remind members that, given the circumstances that

confront our Province, the Chair is allowing much more latitude in terms of time

allocated for asking questions and for the responses. I would appreciate it if

we could get back to a position where we make our questions more concise. Also,

that means that we have our answers more concise as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately again we are witnessing the President of Treasury

Board who wants to fight with anyone who dares even ask a question, and wants to

live in the past when again they were elected to show real leadership, take a

new approach, and lead us to renewed prosperity, which is certainly what we have

not witnessed in the last six months.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again - it is not for the government to ask me what option

I would choose - what option is the President of Treasury Board suggesting, that

he is going to speak to Mr. Peddle about, to get the additional essential

workers that have now publicly been asked for and requested of the government if

there is no agreed-to resolution with the talks that I assume are going to

happen later today? What option is the government going to explore, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to look at any particular process that we consider appropriate,

and we will respond to any particular request. What I do find very offensive is

that I come to this House today and I am told by colleagues on that side of the

House, or a colleague, that there was an agreement presented to us that I knew

nothing about. That is not proper collective bargaining, to me, 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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I said to the minister that I knew she had a head for

figures but I still fail to see her heart for people. Every day now we hear

about people who are desperate for health care services, but we have heard

nothing from the minister. What do you say, Minister, to a twenty-three-year-old

woman who is sitting home today with a brain tumor, waiting for this strike to

end? The stress is building every day for her and her family. Does the minister

realize this, or even care about the impact that this strike is having on people

and families in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated to this House before, we have daily discussions with the

health care boards on an ongoing basis and we leave it to the health care

providers and physicians to determine what are emergency and urgent cases. Those

are the cases that are being handled by the health care boards at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under the rotation, the Chair now recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

One thing is very clear, and that is that the unions in this particular

dispute are anxious to get a negotiated collective agreement. Mr. Speaker, the

real question is: Has this Premier given up on negotiating a collective

agreement, as he said yesterday, and is the reason because he actually wants to

have an effective wage rollback offering 5 per cent over four years when he

knows that PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that inflation will eat up 8.4 per

cent of wages over the next four years? Is the real reason that this Premier

wants to have an effective rollback, and that he is not prepared to be flexible

and to actually look for a negotiated settlement instead of impose one?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that I

want an agreed settlement with the unions. That is why, as the Minister of

Finance and the President of Treasury Board has said, we have exchanged several

offers. How many offers in total? Probably a dozen offers in total.

MR. SULLIVAN: Twelve to fifteen, I think.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Twelve to fifteen offers we have exchanged. We are

doing everything we can to try and work towards a settlement. As indicated

today, the Minister of Labour has indicated that we will have mediators involved

to see if there is any possibility - perhaps if the hon. gentleman knows exactly

what the offer is that is proposed to us today, if he could tell me now, than I

can react to that offer, if he knows it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to the Premier's assertions earlier, I am happy that mediation

services are being offered. But, my concern, Mr. Speaker, was that those

mediation services may fail unless the Premier is prepared to show the kind of

flexibility that will be needed. The kind of creativity that is needed to reach

an agreement in these circumstances.

The real question here, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier prepared to be flexible?

Is he prepared to recognize that a deal can be made if he is prepared to be

reasonable? Is he prepared to give his own government officials and his own

Minister of Finance the kind of authority needed to reach a deal in the best

interest of the people of Newfoundland, showing the kind of flexibility that is

required?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and as

he well knows, we have shown significant flexibility. A major issue for the

union of course, as you know, has been concessions. We have taken away pension

indexing. We have taken away the issue of sick leave for current employees. We

have taken away the issue of severance. That is off the table. They were taken

very, very early in the negotiation, they were taken off the table. As well,

during the course of the last weekend, job evaluation has been agreed upon. As

well, during the last weekend, remaining issues on pensions have been agreed

upon. We have made significant movement in order to alleviate any concerns that

have been expressed by the union. We are doing absolutely everything we can and

we are prepared to continue negotiations whenever they are ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, on a

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night I listened to a woman, named Christine from Badger, cry over the

airways because her mother who is in a long-term care facility has been left in

bed for the past twenty days. Her hands are swollen from no therapy and her

condition is deteriorating by the day.

Mr. Speaker, this woman can only sit and watch, helpless to fix the problem,

but the minister, she and her government, can fix the problem and bring an end

to this suffering. What does the minister have to say to people like Christine?

Would you tell this woman, minister, that the system is still coping?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member knows that I cannot speak to specific cases. I can assure her

that cases which are urgent and emergency are being dealt with by the hospitals

and long-term care facilities. There is a safe level of service being provided

to residents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the recess the Leader of the

Opposition raised a point of order that people outside were denied access to the

gallery, and as a result of that, there were people who wanted to be here, could

not be here.

During the recess I asked a question and was informed that there was nobody -

I am going to get to that, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, why

they left - who wanted to be here, that was denied to be here. That is from

security, not from anybody here.

Secondly, I have also been informed that the reason the public service

workers who were in the gallery left is because their union asked them to leave

because of the statement by the Minister of Labour. I just want that cleared up

for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

There were two issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition before we took

our brief recess. One was about why we had management personnel filling the

seats of this gallery this afternoon when we are all in a strike situation and

they are, I would assume, essential workers in this Province. The question was

asked: Would they leave or would the Premier allow them to leave, rather than

have them stay in the galleries? I note, as well, that they are still there. It

is quite obvious that we know where the priorities are as to how essential they

are, when they can sit in the galleries and fill seats this afternoon. That was

one piece of it.

The other issue was about whether or not public servants who are on strike

could access this Chamber this afternoon. It may well be that the ones who were

in these seats decided to leave, once they became aware of the statement by the

Minister of Labour this afternoon, vis--vis irrelevant. The point is, I say to

the Government House Leader, the issue that was raised here was: Why were people

being told that they could not get in?

We have had that issue of security in this building twice today. I raised the

point of privilege here earlier and a question was raised vis--vis the public

servants. Whether this government wants to recognize it or not, Mr. Speaker,

there is an issue about people accessing this building and this Chamber.

Now, the Chair may feel that it is not anybody in government who is

instructing this to be done, but the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, someone in

authority in this building has had people barred from this building today. Now,

whether it is to the Chamber up here because they are told they are not allowed

in, there are no seats available, or whether it is we cannot access the building

because someone has the doors locked, there is an issue. Whether it is an

Assistant Deputy Minister, a Director of Security, there is still somebody, I

would assume, in this Province taking their direction from this government.

Somebody is making that decision, and it doesn't take away from the issue of

management staff filling the seats here when they ought to be providing

essential services to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to respond to the point of order of the Government House Leader, to

emphasize that the issue that was raised here today is still a live issue, that

is that between one o'clock and one thirty there were large numbers of people

who wanted access to the House of Assembly and were told, by somebody - and I

don't think it was officers of this House - that the galleries were full and

there was no room for them to enter. Now, whether they were able to, an hour or

so later, when this House was recessed, whether they were still there trying to

get in or they had gone on somewhere else because they couldn't get in, is

irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that some people were denied access to the

House, presumably not by your authority, Mr. Speaker, so that the obvious

problem here is that the control over the operation of this House is no longer

in the hands of the Chair, of the Speaker, but it is somehow in the hands of the

government or whoever is directing the security force.

I don't believe it is the Speaker who is telling people that the House is

full when the House is not full. Somebody is directing the security forces.

Somebody is directing somebody to tell people that the House is full when it is

not. Members opposite have denied that it is them, but somebody is doing it, and

I think it is incumbent on you, as the chief officer of this House, to solve

that problem so that we don't have that happen again.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to you to decide the

allegation that is made against you, but the allegation that has been made

against this government by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has already

been dealt with in this House, and I take personal affront and exception to the

allegation made by the member.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The Leader of the Opposition,

prior to the recess, asked a question to which this government responded:

Absolutely! He accepted it. When we left I stood on a point of information to

clarify a situation. One, I asked security: Was anyone who wanted to get in

denied? No. Secondly -

AN HON. MEMBER: They were.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if that is the case, we will have to figure it out.

Secondly, that the reason public servants who are on strike left the galley

is because their union asked them.

Now, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I tell the Opposition House Leader,

if we want to talk about who is providing direction, let me ask the Member for

Port de Grave: Outside this building this morning, while he was pointing out the

strikers, the member for Trinity North, that is one of them, she is one of them,

was he providing that direction this morning? Yes, he was. So those allegations

can go both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard various representations on this particular matter, I don't

believe it is necessary to hear anymore. The Chair will consult with the

Officers of the House and others. I make it quite clear that security to this

House of Assembly is the responsibility of the Speaker and others who serve the

House.

As to the access to the rest of the building, that is not an issue that

concerns the Speaker but is an issue that concerns people who are responsible

for security to this establishment; in other words, Confederation Building

outside of the precincts of Parliament itself.

The Speaker is responsible for security in the precincts of Parliament only,

and we will report back to the House at a later date on a ruling and explanation

of what happened today.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Chair cannot get members to co-operate, the Chair has no choice - it

is unusual - but to call a recess and to call the House Leaders together to make

sure that we function co-operatively and in a manner that is pertinent to and

supportive of the parliamentary process.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to belabour the issue, but a brand new point of order relating

to the same issue.

It is obvious that it is a little sensitive and a bit hot today, and the

government is under tremendous pressure because they have talked about the issue

and they even insulted one of their own members by saying: How dare you point

out and name that young woman?

The young woman, by the way, happens to be competent and capable enough and

highly respected enough to be a member of this Legislature just like all the

rest of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I am sure she does not need any defence from a Premier who

would say: How dare you do that to a young woman? The people of Trinity-Bay de

Verde see her as a very competent, capable individual, Mr. Speaker, and I am

surprised that the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women did not rise on

a point of order today like she did last week.

Mr. Speaker, the point, though, is this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his point of order very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: It is another serious point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the

zoo crew over there are a bit sensitive today, and I am sure the Member for Lake

Melville would like to be saying something other than he is saying. I am sure he

might again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If we continue to have interruptions, the Chair will recess the House and I

do not want to do that. Ordinarily, members co-operate, but if we continue to

have interruptions we will have to call a recess so we can have members reflect

on their roles here and we do not have members shouting at each other. It does

not serve any purpose. It does not promote parliamentary practices, and I ask

members sincerely for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to finish up your comments

now on your point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask again, on behalf of all members under this point of order, for

clarification that maybe you can provide when you check into it, because I am

sure you will want to investigate this just like you have given an undertaking

to investigate the other points of order that have been raised.

The other thing that has occurred today is this: For the first time, I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, the visitors to our gallery, who are staff members -

political staff who had already been in the building, they work here - and

management staff who are not needed for anything essential, obviously, because

they are sitting in the galleries, they were all required today, Mr. Speaker,

for the first time ever, to sign it at the security desk and register as if they

are visitors to the building and visitors to this Legislature.

They were also required, Mr. Speaker, and it is a serious point of order and

I ask the members to listen because some of them are new and do not know the

rules here yet - for the first time ever they were asked, people who work here,

just like us. Our staff, the two or three from the Opposition office, because we

only brought in essential workers, most of our staff did not cross the picket

line out of respect, they did not need to sign a book and they did not need a

visitor's tag because they are not visitors. They are workers here. They have

a card that identifies that they are allowed in the building and they do not

need to sign the book.

Mr. Speaker, my contention is this: Management personnel and political staff

from the government, under somebody's direction - and I am sure that you will

say it is not yours, Mr. Speaker - were asked to go and fill in the book, and

take a visitor's badge and put it on their lapels so that the security could

tell the members of the general public that the book is full, the galleries are

full, there is no room for you.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, in your investigation - because you have undertaken

to do so - could you, if it is not your office, because I am pretty confident

that it is not, check and see who has changed the rules so that employees of the

government who are already in the building, entitled to be here - we were all

issued a special security card for the duration of the strike - were asked to

participate in a sham and a scam today to suit the purposes of the government by

signing in as if they were visitors from outside the building, by wearing a

visitor's sticker on their lapel and by totally abusing access to this

particular Legislature that the government has now been caught doing?

I am sure you will identify that it was not your office. Then it is up to the

government to identify which one of them gave those instructions to the staff

who have a right to be here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The point of the order raised by the Leader of the

Opposition is sufficiently close to the previous points of order. The Chair will

consider both points of order together and come back at the appropriate time

with a commentary.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order regarding Question Period, and I want to be quite

frank about this but I certainly do not wish and will not offend the Chair. I am

concerned about the conduct of Question Period and what we see here. I waited,

in accordance with the rules, until after Question Period was over.

The conduct of Question Period itself - it is my understanding the purpose of

Question Period is so that the Opposition can ask questions of government, and

the rules stipulate that there should be, maybe for question number one, a

preamble and then a question, and subsequent supplementary questions would not

require

preambles.

I guess nobody ever called it answer period, because there is no requirement,

I guess, that they answer, but there is at least an expectation that the

government would try to provide an answer, or some information, not to lecture

the Opposition, certainly not to ask questions of the Opposition. We will fix

that in four years' time when they will be over here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In four years' time, Mr. Speaker, they can be over here to

ask all the questions that they like.

I am not raising this point frivolously, because the Government House Leader

has been very, very straight with the Opposition in this session when it comes

to free time, how much time we would like to have to talk, but I note in

Question Period, and I think if you do the timings, which I have been doing for

some time, it is very clear that in Question Periods we have been asking the

questions, and we are trying to get in as many as we can, but some members of

the government, particularly the President of Treasury Board, tends to give a

lecture rather than an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I submit, Mr. Speaker, in view of that, we need to take a

serious look at the timings. We appreciate a response provided it is being

informative, and provided it is not pontificating, it is not preaching and it is

not lecturing us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard the hon. Opposition House Leader. As members will note,

during Question Period today, I did reflect at one point. When we began this

session I indicated that the objective of this Chair was to have questions which

were approximately forty seconds to forty-five seconds in maximum length and

responses of an equal duration.

In the last number of days, because of the circumstances facing the Province

- today we had one set of questions that went on for a minute and thirty-eight

seconds and equally drew a reply that went on for approximately the same time.

That happened on three separate occasions today. The questions were rather

lengthy and the answers were equally lengthy.

I should quote from Marleau and Montpetit ,

Chapter 11, page 425. It

says, relative to Question Period, "Time is scarce and should, therefore,

be used as profitably as possible by as many as possible."

This afternoon, we had cases where people had questions and they could not

get a chance to ask all their questions. The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse

au Clair, I do believe, had a third question. I noted that the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo had a set of questions. When we do not keep our questions

short, then likewise there is a tendency on the government not to keep their

answers brief as well. Consequently, according to Speaker Jerome in the House of

Parliament in Ottawa, he said, the first principle of Question Period is

brevity.

I remind all members, as to the answers in Question Period, members know

there are a number of options that are open to a government. They can decide to

answer the question. They can decide to take it as notice. They can decide to

refer it to some other day, or ask it be put on the written questions, or they

can simply not answer at all, say nothing. The Opposition cannot command the

type of answers no more than the government can command the type of questions.

Thank you very much.

There is no point of order but I do take the opportunity to make a comment.

Let's trust that the next day we can get back to making sure Question Period

functions as close to the intent of the Chair as possible: brief questions and

equally brief answers.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to assure the Opposition House Leader that I will not lecture. I

will be very short and sweet.

Yes, I am new to this House and I may not know all the rules yet, but I do

know that the Leader of the Opposition cannot put words into my mouth. He had

said that I was insulted when I was referred to as a young woman. I would like

to assure him that I am absolutely not insulted. I am very proud to be a young

woman in this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: - as I am sure the people of Trinity-Bay de Verde District

are very proud to have me here speaking on behalf of them.

I did try to get into this House this morning and I have no problems. If I

encounter a situation where there is an issue where I may have to call for

assistance to get in - but once again a member opposite, as members opposite

continue to do, they continue to instigate and they continue to hinder this

cause, and I do not think that is (inaudible).

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules that there is no point of order. It is a point of explanation

but certainly no point of order.

I ask members now if we could continue on with the proceedings as per our

agenda.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have seen it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am hesitant to rise on another point of order because I would like

for us to get to the business of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this time you witnessed what just occurred. There have

been rulings in this House before about points of order and privilege and proper

decorum and behaviour, that not only include the spoken word but also include

gestures.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of our Province, whom we would all like to be so

proud of, whom we would all love to be so proud of, and would hope that he is

doing such a good job and providing such great leadership, after the last

exchange with respect to the point of order, which I listened to in silence, out

of respect for the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, three different times he

pointed across the floor at me, in a threatening gesture, and went: Bang! Bang!

Bang!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Now, Mr. Speaker, they are laughing. They are laughing, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the members opposite might notice -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to say the members opposite who laughed so hard that some of them

are wiping tears from their eyes, that is how funny they find these issues,

because they do not understand and respect Parliament. They might learn and

respect it a bit more than their leader does some time soon. Hopefully they

will, Mr. Speaker.

I would not raise it normally, except for the fact that there has been a

history of this, with this particular leader and this Premier. He has, in the

past in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: - in the past, Mr. Speaker, the happy gang over there, which

they want to be today because they are under such pressure.... I know they need

some comic relief. They think anything is comic relief with the mess that they

have created in the last twenty days.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the same Premier has looked across at members of

this side and has used this gesture, in this House of Assembly, and that same

Premier, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, which you may not have seen, but I

am sure that you saw the gesture today, he went to one of our members in the

last week and did this: Bang!

Mr. Speaker, we have a history of it and a record of it and it is serious.

The members opposite, particularly the brand new members up in the gallery, in

the zoo crew that do not know the rules yet, are laughing at it as if it is

hilarious. Mr. Speaker, you have been trying to set a new example for us. You,

to your credit, as the first ever historically elected Speaker in the Province,

have been trying to bring a new level of decorum and respect to this

Legislature, but those kinds of things that we see from the Premier - and then

when I raise a point, he goes like this, as if we are crying crocodile tears.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of behaviours we have from the Premier of the

Province, the leader of their party in this Legislature, where we are supposed

to be showing respect for each other. I normally would not raise the point

except to say this, that we expect to see a better example from the new approach

with the real leadership. I believe that you, as the Speaker, would expect to

see a better example than that. I would expect that all of us would be better

serving the people of the Province if our number one leader, the Premier of the

Province, sets a better example for his own caucus and for the whole Legislature

than what we have seen today and in the last several weeks, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair takes note. The Chair did not see any gestures. I

was focusing my attention to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde and then back

to this side of the House.

In ruling that there is not a point of order, because the Chair did not see

any of these things happening across the floor, however, in doing that, again I

ask all hon. members to treat the House with the dignity that it has

historically required of members and to avoid gestures, to avoid things that

provoke, things that cause disorder, things that do not serve the goals of

parliament and things that prevent us from debating the issues that are before

this Province, which is what we are here to do. I would ask all hon. members to

get their cooperation, if I can, so we can return to the normal agenda that is

put forward by this parliament for discussion of the public's business in the

public's interest. Let's do it in a manner that respects the integrity of

all hon. members and the integrity of parliament, the institution that we, as

all parliamentarians, value so much. Regardless of whether we disagree strongly,

fervently and very, very aggressively with other members, we may not believe or

follow what they are saying or support what they are doing but civility is the

essence of parliament. When civility is compromised, than Parliament is

compromised. Asking, again, for your complete cooperation.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two

Orders in Council relating to funding, pre-commitments for the 2004-2005 fiscal

year.

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.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 has been called. I do believe that the last speaker

was on the Opposition side. The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans addressed

the House last.

I recognize now the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly happy today to take

part in the Budget Debate. I think this is

my eleventh Budget Debate here in the House of Assembly and I never fail to be

impressed in seeing new members. Since the last election, I say, Mr. Speaker,

that all of the new members are on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I have stood here before at an earlier time since we came

back and congratulated other members and all members of this House for being

re-elected. Mr. Speaker, it certainly tells me that we are in good hands and

that this House and this Province is going to be left in good hands for a long

time to come, when you see new members stand on their feet and speak for the

first time and, for the most part, the Chair has to remind them that their

twenty minutes has expired.

I remember first when I got elected. It took me about three days to get ready

to speak in the House of Assembly. I see new members now standing up, no notes,

just going and delivering their speech and talking about the concerns in their

districts; the good things that will be happening and the positive things about

this Budget. It is certainly very encouraging.

Mr. Speaker, the duties of the Opposition certainly have not changed from the

eleven years that we were on that side of the House up until now. Everybody

realizes that the Opposition is the group that sits in this House, that asks

questions, holds government accountable, and that will not change.

I notice that our Government House Leader, every time somebody on the

opposite side stands to speak they have never been denied leave. They have been

given ample time to make their points, no matter how long they have spoken.

Never have I heard anybody take leave from a member in Opposition. I can assure

you, there were many times when we were not granted the same courtesy.

We talk about the Budget, Mr. Speaker, and people are talking about the

negative things that are in this Budget. Nobody ever talks about - except the

people here who know the good things in the Budget - the positive things that

are here, and the good things that are brought forward for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is one thing that every member on this side of the House has always

said when they stood to speak, to talk about the need to get a better deal from

the central government in Ottawa. That is something that the members on the

other side of the House continued to talk about when they were here, and it has

not changed from October 21 up until now. Because, until we get a better deal

from the central government, we are always going to be looking to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to put their hand in their own pocket to shell

out more in order to provide the services that we provide here in this Province

today.

The one thing that I have continued to raise here in this House of Assembly

is the returns that we get from our offshore oil fields. I remember a number of

years ago sitting on the opposite side, and I think I was the critic for

development and rural renewal at that particular time, when the former Premier

stood here and talked about the wonderful event that he had just attended out at

Whiffen Head; about this major project that was being brought forward, all the

benefits that would transpire and be acquired by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. He had just come back from Whiffen Head, made this big

announcement, where this giant production contract, construction project, was

going to go ahead, and the wonderful things that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians would see. Of course, Mr. Speaker, he was talking about the Whiffen

Head site where we store oil that comes from our two oil fields today, Terra

Nova and Hibernia.

A couple of days ago, I called a worker who works at the Whiffen Head

transshipment facility and asked him how much oil flowed through that particular

facility and how many people were employed there, Mr. Speaker. I was shocked at

the figures that he gave me. These are the benefits that we are acquiring, and a

lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians put benefits in direct relationship to

jobs created, because that is the way we are. We want to find work. We want to

be able to go out and work and get some benefits from our resources. If we find

work, that will naturally bring prosperity to each of us who finds work, and the

communities where we live.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you that at that particular facility, he gave me the

per quarter figures first of all. He said there were fifty million barrels of

oil that go through the Whiffen Head facility, in a quarter. Fifty million

barrels of oil. You break that down, Mr. Speaker, per week, and you find out -

and you relate it to gallons because most of us can relate to gallons and not

barrels - you will find that there are 170 million gallons of oil per week that

go through Whiffen Head facility, 170 million gallons per week. Mr. Speaker,

that translates into 24 million gallons of oil per day. This 24 million gallons

of oil per day is landed at the Whiffen Head facility, stored there in a big

tank, and is shipped out again by another tanker to be taken somewhere else for

full benefits.

People are saying: Well, if there are 50 million barrels of oil that go

through that facility in three months, then there has to be a lot people working

there. That is a lot of oil. You talk about 24 million gallons of oil per day,

there have to be a lot of people working there.

I ask people opposite if they would like to tell me how many people work at

the Whiffen Head oil facility? Does anybody know? Does anybody on the other side

know how many people are employed at the Whiffen Head oil facility, this great

oil project off our shores that is supposed to give us full and fair benefits

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Does anybody know? One member said two.

Mr. Speaker, there are three people per ship working at the Whiffen Head

facility. Three people per ship. There are some tankers that come in and out

there as well, that deliver the oil and take the oil from the Whiffen Head

facility to carry it somewhere else to be refined. So, I said, if there are only

those many people working there, then there have to be a lot of Newfoundlanders

working on oil tankers. He said, I have it all right here. I have it all right

here, he said. Bringing oil into the Whiffen Head facility, he said, there are

three shuttle tenders. Three ships, twenty-five people per ship worked on those

oil tankers, taking oil out of the refinery. Ah, I said, that is where

Newfoundlanders are employed. They have to be taking the oil somewhere else.

Newfoundlanders go all over the world. They are not only working off our coast

or in our communities and towns.

Mr. Speaker, there is one ship called the Avalon Spirit , that lands at

the Whiffen Head facility that hires Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There are

twenty-five local people working on that particular ship. Every other ship,

every other tanker, every other shuttle that comes in there to Whiffen Head,

picks up oil, takes it around the world. It is not even flagged with the

Canadian Flag. It does not even fly the Canadian Flag, and probably the Prime

Minister of Canada might own some of those. It is a good chance, because he does

own a fair number of ships that operate in the Great Lakes, under the Upper

Lakes Shipping, that employs people who are not Canadians and pays them poverty

wages. It is an understood fact. It is understood, that is the way that Prime

Minister operates.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why the people in Newfoundland and Labrador

decided that it was time for a change on October 21.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That was the reason people went to the polls and said

that we have had enough of being raped here in this Province. That is why people

wanted a new direction. They wanted a new beginning, and that is why you see a

new Premier sitting on this side of the House, and a new government and a new

Cabinet today. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from every caucus meeting that I

have attended, and from every meeting I have had, and every conversation that I

have had with people on this side of the House, I think it is fair to say that

those kinds of things will never happen again in this Province. Those days are

over!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is shameful!

When you see our government using a new approach - because that is the

approach they are taking with Ottawa. I can tell you, it is an approach right

now that is friendly. It is conciliatory. It is going forward and putting

forward our needs and hoping somebody will listen. I can assure people, not only

in this House but right across Newfoundland and Labrador, that if we do not get

results by going in that direction then you will find that we will shift gears

and go in another direction and go down another road very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, that is one particular facility which certainly does not provide

many opportunities to people in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I heard the

Minister of Tourism when he talked about increasing his budget this year to $1

million, over and above last year, to bring us closer to the Atlantic average;

bring us up closer to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Money well spent, I say to

you, Mr. Speaker. Money well spent. Unfortunately, the former administration was

spending money in tourism and promoting tourism as something that would help

generate some economic activity - and it has, there is no doubt about that -

but, Mr. Speaker, the one thing they failed to do was put any money back into

road work, to do what needed to be done in order to attract, what I would call

the rubber tire traffic, and having them go down the Bonavista Peninsula and up

the Northern Peninsula, and down the Connaigre Peninsula and the Burin

Peninsula. That is what that government failed to do.

Sometimes we hear them talking about not being treated right, not getting

their fair share, even though we have only been sitting over here for five or

six months. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what my fair share was last year in

road work. Let me tell you what my fair share was of the $23 million that they

brought forward. My fair share was the changing of one intersection in

Lethbridge. That was my fair share, I say, from the $23 million. Mr. Speaker,

that was an exception. That was an exception, I have to be honest here, because

in the past it was a situation where I could go and sit down with a minister and

talk to a minister and put forward the needs. It was not uncommon to have a

minister come to my district to look at the needs, and I always got a fair

share. I always got a fair share - until last year - with the minister who

looked after Works, Services and Transportation, last year. Money was put

forward, at least to most people on our side of the House, because I heard it

here before. I am not the only exception. Without any consultation the money was

put there, not asking what your needs were, what needed to be done, other than:

here is what you are going to get, and that is all that is there for you.

The former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is here in the House.

I say to him, when he was the minister there - we talk about job creation

projects when we come forward - some of the money - look, we find ourselves in

debt today by a tremendous amount of money, a debt that is certainly

unsustainable. That is why some changes had to be made to the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, was probably one of the first people over there

looking for job creation money in the fall of the year because there was a great

need. While somebody might find it difficult to understand why you have to put

$2 million, $3 million or $4 million out to a job creation exercise, it is not

hard to understand by rural members. It was a way to be able to put a few

dollars in somebody's pockets to allow them to continue to live in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a way to sustain families. It was not so much

about the job that was done - although that was important and there was very

valuable work done - but, Mr. Speaker, it was about helping families. It was

about helping individuals. It was about the survival of communities. I, for one,

will stand here in this House at anytime and defend any money that was every

spent in that kind of an initiative, and it will continue to happen because

there is a great need there. When you look at the district that I represent,

where we lost 2,300 jobs in 1992, how can you go and pull yourself up by the

boot strings, if you would, and make a recovery from that, especially when those

jobs all came from one industry where people were trained at one job and did not

have the flexibility to make adjustments or to leave the Province? So it was

money well spent.

The Premier talks about - in fact, he does not even talk about it, he is

going to do it - creating a new office in Ottawa to deal with problems that

directly affect this Province. I can tell you, if there was ever need for a

presence - and I know we have seven members there now. I know members opposite

say: Why do we need an office, we have seven members there now? Rightly so,

there are members there who are certainly working for the good of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but with the mindset that exists in Ottawa, I

can assure you that we need somebody to be in somebody's face there all the

time.

I have made two pilgrimages - I call them pilgrimages, because that is what

it was to Ottawa - once with members from the opposite side. It was two

all-party committees, actually. The first trip we made was to initiate and have

a new program brought forward called the Post-TAGS program, if people remember.

There was an NCARP, then there was a TAGS program, and then it was another

program called Post-TAGS.

I remember seven or eight of us going up to Ottawa. We tried to arrange some

meetings before we left. A couple of the meetings that were prearranged was a

meeting of the Liberal caucus, a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries

who, at that time, was Minister Mifflin, if I recall. Then we had a meeting with

Newfoundland Members of Parliament separate that night. When we got there we

decided: Well, since we are here maybe we should try to arrange a meeting with

the other parties too, which was the PC Party - we did not bother the Bloc - and

the New Democratic Party. The first meeting we had was with the New Democratic

Party. We were invited into their caucus room. We were given an opportunity to

speak and to put forward our views of what we would like to see happen with this

new program, the need of it and how it related to, not only our districts, but

all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then we left, Mr. Speaker, and met with the PC Party. I think the PC Party

was pretty well there in full, as well, at the time. We had lunch, and then the

next meeting was with the Liberal caucus. We went into this great, big room, a

bigger room than we sit in here. It was full of chairs, Mr. Speaker. We showed

up, seven or eight members. How many Liberal caucus members do you think showed

up to that particular meeting? A meeting that was from a committee which was

formed in this House, an all-party committee, the taxpayers' dollars paid for

the trip up. How many Liberal members do you think showed up to that particular

meeting? There were two. There were two Liberal members. At that particular time

they must have had - well, what did they have? They must have had 160 or 180

people there. There were two ministers. We got up and made our presentation -

two members, I mean. There were two members and there was one senator. Two

members and one senator. We made our little speech and we talked to them because

it was important. No matter if there was only one there, we would have still

done our thing.

Mr. Speaker, I remember, and it always stuck with me, the member for - I

think he was the Member for Spadina; I think it is Spadina. I am not 100 per

cent sure, but it was some Toronto riding anyways, a Mr. Dennis Mills. He is

still there today. He is still a Liberal caucus member today. I remember him

saying to me: Mr. Fitzgerald, if you have so many people down there who are

unemployed than tell them to bar up their houses and move up to Toronto. I was

shocked. Just imagine! What an approach to take. To come to Toronto, for what?

To work for the minimum wage? To leave communities where some of those people

were fifty-five and sixty years old and probably have never been any further

than the Avalon Peninsula. That is not an option, Mr. Speaker. That is not a

solution to the problem. We went there to be heard, but I can tell you, that is

the mindset you face when you go to Ottawa and you try to convince people from

Central Canada about the problems that we are experiencing here in this

Province. As long as we can put somebody up there to be in front of somebody, to

put forward our needs and our concerns, Mr. Speaker, until that happens, nothing

will change. Hopefully, when that office is established there and we get it

staffed we will see some better things coming from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things that I would like to speak

about today. Something that I have to talk about is the EI program, where we

have $50 billion today in an EI account up in Ottawa, taken - I say it was

robbed from the most disadvantaged people, for the most part, in this country, a

lot of them Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are either unfortunate enough,

or fortunate enough, whichever way you look at it - it would be fortunate for

some, unfortunate for most - to be working at seasonal jobs. When you work at a

seasonal job, whether you want to or not, Mr. Speaker, EI will always be part of

your income. The Employment Insurance paycheque will always be part of your

income.

I tell you, seasonal jobs are important jobs. They are great contributors to

this economy, Especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where we have a

resource-based economy, you will find most of our jobs are seasonal jobs. It is

shameful today where you have $50 billion in an EI account and people are

denied, number one, benefits, collecting employment insurance, and number two,

denied the opportunity to go back to school and receive funding to be retrained

to go out and make themselves more employable. That is the kind of mind set that

has to be changed. It is disgraceful! It is discouraging to me and it is hurtful

when somebody makes a phone call and says: I want to get back into school. I can't

afford to go back to school because I have children.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just by leave? Just for a second?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I certainly won't take advantage of leave, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly hurtful when you see people, family men and women, who

realize that they need to be trained and retrained in order to make themselves

more employable, and want to go back to school, need to go back to school - that

is the message that we all carry, people here will not disagree with that, Mr.

Speaker - and you call the Human Resources Development Office and they say: No,

I am sorry, you don't qualify because you have been out of work for more than

thirty-six months. That is shameful when you have $50 billion in that account

that is being spent, for the most part, probably with the scandal that happened

in Montreal. I know that it was called a different pot of money, but it all

comes from the same pockets and it is all channeled through the same government.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is shameful.

That is the reason we need to be in front of our members of parliament to

make sure that we get our fair benefit from the EI program, not only in

paycheques, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, but also in benefits to put forward to

retain people to make them more employable when they want to go and look for a

job. You don't have to tell those people they have to go back to school, those

people are going back to school taking training because they want to do it.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down. There are others who want to speak. I

certainly appreciate the opportunity today to take

part in the Budget Debate.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome this opportunity to speak today and pass a few remarks along on the

2004 Budget. I guess a lot of people, when they look at this Budget, they have

to make a determination about whether or not it is a responsible Budget or an

irresponsible Budget. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I look at what has gone

on in the House of Assembly today, and I look at the waste that we have seen and

the circus, with all due respect to the Speaker, that we have seen here today

with respect to management people filling the galleries of this House, clearly

there is an indication that if we are in a crisis situation with respect to the

economy of this Province and the fiscal situation in this Province, then what we

have experienced and seen here today points to the fact that we know where there

can be savings made.

Unfortunately, what we witnessed today was an abuse to have the gallery

filled today with management personnel, essential personnel, here to do a job,

here to make sure that the people's needs are met, here to make sure that the

business of the government is carried out as essential workers because we have

20,000 striking employees on the street, and we turn around and see today the

galleries filled with management personnel. To think that these people were told

ensure that there was not enough room in the galleries for striking workers is a

cause for concern.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that if you work in this House, all you have to do

to get into the building, all you have to do to get into Confederation Building,

pass. All you have to do is use this pass that was given to every employee who

can access Confederation Building while the strike is on. So, to have people

from management, management personnel, sit in the gallery, again at an expense

to the taxpayer because we assume they are here to do work that would normally

be done by the striking employees, but they sat in the galleries not for half an

hour, not for one hour, but for two hours today sitting in the gallery wasting

time, wasting taxpayers' dollars.

If we have a financial situation in this Province that requires such drastic

measures as the government opposite is putting forward, then I call into

question again what is being said in terms of where we are financially in this

Province. When we can have management sit in the galleries, there is something

There is a record of everyone who signed in, to sit in the gallery, and that

concerns me, Mr. Speaker. It clearly shows there is an abuse here - by whomever,

I do not know - but I am glad to see that the Speaker is going to be looking

into this and undertake an investigation, because what happened here today

created a circus of this House. That is uncalled for, unnecessary. When we are

here representing the people who elected us to come and sit in the House of

Assembly and make sure that their concerns are addressed, what we saw today,

that would not happen.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the Budget, Budget 2004. The members opposite talk

about why they had to do what they did, how necessary it was to get our fiscal

house in order. You know, if you look at the Budget, you have to question the

direction in which this government is going to get that fiscal house in order.

Nobody would question the need to make sure that our fiscal house is in order,

but when you say in the Budget - this is what the government opposite promised

to do in the Budget Speech - "We promised to protect the most vulnerable

people in our society - our seniors, children, students, the disabled, the

unemployed and the working poor - and we are delivering on that promise."

I would challenge anyone opposite to ask the seniors, to ask our children, to

ask our students, to ask the disabled, to ask the unemployed and the working

poor, if they feel this government is delivering on that promise with this

Budget. I guarantee you that the answer you will get back is not the one that

you want to hear, because when you talk about introducing fees, 150 separate

fees that impact on the vulnerable in our society, clearly the people that you

promised to serve well and to deliver on a promise of making sure that they are

taken care of, then you are not living up to that promise with this Budget.

I have to talk about the economy, growing the economy, and what this

government is holding out as the future prospects for our Province, and what

they are going to do to make sure that they tame the fiscal tiger and get that

economic tiger up and running. You know, it is hilarious when you look at the

approach, the vision, and a Premier who puts up his hands, saying: We do not

know what to do. If the federal government does not come to the table and give

us a better deal, I really do not know what we are going to do.

What does that tell you about a person who, during an election campaign,

professed to have all the answers to turning around this Province's economy?

What does it tell you about a person who promised, during the election, to

deliver on vital capital projects throughout Newfoundland and Labrador? One such

vital capital project in Grand Bank on the Burin Peninsula. What does this tell

you about an individual who saw a $17.5 million facility promised and who

guaranteed - we have it on tape - that if he became the Premier he would deliver

on that promise, that health care facility would be promised?

What I have heard today, Mr. Speaker, is that the steel is coming down for

that facility. You do not know who to believe, because on the one hand you hear

the steel is coming down, but if you look at comments made by the Premier

recently, when he was in Gander, the Gander redevelopment was cancelled in the

Budget but, in a comment he made in the Gander Beacon , an interview that

he did, he insisted that despite what was said in the Budget, the Gander

redevelopment would go ahead.

Further down in that same story, which I took some hope out of, he said, in

fact, with respect to the other capital projects like the one in Gander and the

one in Grand Bank, we will have to see how the money is going.

He did not say, when he gave that interview, that the project was cancelled.

So, we are living in hope. Now, it may be false hope but it is based again on a

Premier speaking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on where he is.

Whether or not he is in Gander, where it is important to convince the people of

Gander that he is going to do well by a promise that he made, or whether it is

in Grand Falls-Windsor, where again he made a promise.

I guess my only problem is that I have not gotten him back down to Grand Bank

where he could stand and say: Forget the Budget, we are going to deliver on that

health care facility for the Burin Peninsula because that is a health care

facility that is so important to people throughout the Burin Peninsula, not just

Grand Bank, but clearly from all senior citizens who use that facility.

That is an issue for us, Mr. Speaker, and one that I think we need to deal

with. That is a facility that is long overdue, that needs to be done. The Member

for Virginia Waters can talk about - speak to Sam - but I am sure the Mayor of

Marystown, while he has his priorities, would also acknowledge that there is

nothing wrong with building a new health care facility in Grand Bank for the

people of the Burin Peninsula. There is a clinic associated with that, as well

as a long-term care facility.

Let me talk about, again, the economy, and how they are going to grow this

economy. The Member for Virginia Waters, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and

Rural Development, says: Wait and see. We have a new approach. We have a Rural

Secretariat. It was in the Budget. We are still trying to figure out what the

Rural Secretariat - which will, by the way, be in St. John's, inside the

overpass. They know all about the Rural Secretariat, so we are really anxious to

see what that is going to contain.

Of course, we have the department which is headed by a minister, under the

direction of a Deputy Minister, Dr. House, who has clearly espoused the vision

for this government. I am pleased to see that she is shaking her head over there

because I am not sure if she agrees or disagrees with him, but in Corner Brook,

in fact, his focus was on the fact that we have - a right to employment

insurance, not necessary. Job creation monies, not necessary. Sick leave, not

necessary. Pay increases, not necessary. Well, this is Dr. House, Dr. Doug House

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. It conflicts with the speech just given by the

Member for Bonavista South, who I have a lot of respect for; who understands the

need for job creation monies, how important they are to rural Newfoundland; who,

in fact, stood and said seasonal employment is very important to the rural

economy of Newfoundland and Labrador; who talked about the importance of people

who are engaged in seasonal employment to be able to access employment

insurance.

We all know we will always have our seasonal employment with us. I would be

very concerned, if I were the minister, to have a deputy minister out talking

about the economy and how they are going to get where they want to get, and look

at these types of programs that are available to people in Newfoundland and

Labrador that he considers unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, when I read these comments by Dr. House, I have to ask if, in

fact, they are the policy of the government of today. It says: We, as a

government, want to partner with the business community and labour to build a

viable, self-sustaining economy in Newfoundland through strategic partnerships.

Well, I wonder what happened to the strategic partnership that was already in

place, the strategic partnership between business, labour and government. Where

is it? We have not heard a thing about it. It has been six months since this

government took place. We have not heard where it is, where it is going, if it

is meeting, how often it is going to meet. We know, of course, that the Premier

has espoused the Irish model as the model that he would like to pattern our

economy on, and we know that is an important component of that Irish model, so I

am hopeful that very important strategic partnership has survived the Budget and

will continue.

We do know that in terms of the economy, and growing the economy, that where

previous governments had one Department of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development, today we have two departments focusing on the economy. We have a

Department of Business, headed up by the Premier, and we have the Department of

Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Now, why you would need two is

questionable, especially when you take a department like Labour and roll it into

Human Resources and Employment, along with the Status of Women.

Again, you question the wisdom behind such a move. Then you look at the

Budget and you see that, in addition to the two departments, you have $1 million

allocated for the Department of Business, being led by the Premier, and you have

$8 million for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

The funny thing about it is that there are no details with the Department of

Business being led by the Premier. In fact, if you look at the Budget document,

the Departmental Salary Details for the Department of Innovation, Trade and

Rural Development, we have Strategic Industries Development, still within the

Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and you have nine

employees there. You have Business Development. You have Regional Economic

Development Services, and you have eight employees there. You have Business

Analysis, still within the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development, and there are ten employees there, for a total, when you look at

all of the headings, of a little over $8 million and 149 employees.

I guess the question for those of us who are watching very attentively in

terms of the economy and how this government is going to turn around the

economy, is: What exactly is the Department of Business, headed by the Premier,

going to do? And, what does that do to the Department of Innovation, Trade and

Rural Development, and the mandate of that department?

I would like to think that, because it includes rural development, there will

be a focus on rural Newfoundland; but, again, we are not hearing a lot out of

this government in terms of rural Newfoundland. In fact, what were are hearing,

and the measures that are being taken in the Budget, are detrimental to rural

Newfoundland. Whether or not it is the closing of offices throughout rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, whether or not it is the increasing in fees, whether

or not you see people who are having to leave the Province, because now there

are 4,000 fewer jobs in the public service, all of these decisions are going to

have and are having a negative impact on rural Newfoundland.

You speak to any business, whether it is inside or outside the overpass, the

sale of large ticket items has gone down drastically. People are not buying

because they really do not know if they are going to have a job. We know we have

people on the picket line today who, while they want to get back, they want to

negotiate a settlement and they want to get back to work, they really do not

know if they have a job to come back to. So, these are scary times for the

people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, we look at the initiative to put an office in Ottawa. The Member from

Bonavista South applauded that move and said it was absolutely necessary, given

the attitude of the federal government, and recognizing that we have seven MPs

in Ottawa. I can