May 3, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLV No. 26

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we have some visitors in our gallery. We have some students

from Centreville Academy in Bonavista North. They are in Grades 6 to 8,

twenty-five of them, I understand, with their teachers Charmaine Collins, Chris

Jackson and Michelle Estekantchi. We have chaperone Connie Hunt and bus driver

Wilson Hunt. I am sure all members would like to welcome these students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the Speaker's left, in the gallery, we have also some

students from the Brother T.I. Murphy Centre. They are here at the invitation of

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. They are high school students, and there

are seven of them, with their teacher Bruce Peters. I am sure members would like

to welcome them as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Under the category of Statements by Members, we have

statements by the following members this afternoon: the Member for Mount Pearl,

the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and the

Member for St. John's Centre.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to two distinguished individuals in Mount

Pearl.

Each year the City of Mount Pearl, in conjunction with the Kinsmen Club,

hosts a banquet at which they select someone from the community as Citizen of

the Year. This year is a very unique situation, as the judges could not come to

a final decision and now we have two Citizens of the Year, and that speaks very

well of both.

Mr. Speaker, to be nominated Citizen of the Year is a reward in itself. It is

a reflection of a person's commitment to enhancing the lives of others.

First we have Mr. Michael Mooney. Mr. Mooney was involved with the Soccer

Association and chaired numerous committees; the Big Brothers/Big Sisters

organization; the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group; the Mount Pearl Frosty

Festival; the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance; the Mount Pearl Junior Blades;

executive member of the host committee for the World Under Seventeen Hockey

Challenge; member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Mission Staff for the 2003

Canada Winter Games; and, winner of the Queen's Jubilee Medal for community

involvement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. DENINE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Next, we have Mr. Noel White. Mr. White is also an individual

who is always available and has volunteered endless hours.

Mr. Speaker, some of Mr. White's volunteer activities include: He is a

Deputy Grand Knight and Program Director with the Father John B. Kent Council of

the Knights of Columbus in Mount Pearl; Past Chairman of the Kenmount Park

Community Centre; he is an active member of Mary Queen of the World Parish; he

is also involved with the Children's Lunch Program at Mary Queen of the World.

He and his family, Mr. Speaker, were selected Family of the Year by the Knights

of Columbus of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003. He was also awarded the Queen's

Jubilee Medal for community service.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the volunteer efforts of these two individuals are

exemplary and I commend them both.

Mr. White and Mr. Mooney, I congratulate you on your award as Citizen of the

Year for 2003, and wish you both every success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms Emily King on being named Grand

Falls-Windsor's Citizen of the Year for 2003.

Ms King was nominated for this prestigious award by members of the Aliant

Pioneers and the Aliant Pioneer Partners Exploits Club. She is described by her

fellow volunteers as a "Good-Will Ambassador" for being the driving

force behind the success of the club's many community projects in the Grand

Falls-Windsor area and beyond.

Ms King has been committed to the "Keep Kiddies Warm" program that

supplies warm clothing to less fortunate children, and she has been praised for

her involvement in the "Hug-a-Bear" program, where hand-made teddy

bears are distributed to the RCMP, ambulance and fire departments, to bring

comfort to children during traumatic events. Ms King also oversees the

"Talking Bear" program, where speakers are inserted and wired to a

microphone to help children open up and talk about what is bothering them.

Outside her involvement in the Aliant Pioneers Partners Club, Ms King is a

very active person in her church.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms King has represented the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor during the Badger

flood with arranging meals, and has been volunteering her time with many groups

in the Central area.

Mr. Speaker, Ms King's dedication and personal commitment to the residents

of our community and our Province has been outstanding and I ask all members of

this House to join me in congratulating her on being named Grand Falls-Windsor's

Citizen of the Year for 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizing

committee for the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games which are being

held in Marystown from August 7 to August 14. The official opening of the

clubhouse was held on Friday night past, with the blessing of the property

conducted by Rev. Robert Peddle.

Thanks to the partnering between the provincial government, the federal

government, the Town of Marystown, the Town of Burin, the Marystown Kinsmen, and

various other support groups in the area, these games are shaping up to be an

extraordinary showcase of the organizational abilities of the local area and the

athletic abilities of the Province.

Following the opening of the club house, the games flag was raised at the

Marystown Council Office site. As well, the games theme song, The Summer Games

Are Here At Last, was launched. I want to extend congratulations to Jennifer

Walsh, a student at Marystown Central High School who wrote and performed the

song. It is a catchy tune, one that you all will hear throughout the summer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JACKMAN: It is a catchy tune, one that you all will hear throughout

the summer and throughout the games.

Mr. Speaker, the countdown has begun. There are ninety-five days to the start

of the games. We hope to see many of you in Marystown from August 7-14.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to inform this House and all hon.

members present of the annual Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal. This fundraising

initiative is traditionally held on the first Monday in May.

Tonight there will be volunteers going door to door in communities all over

Canada and right here in our Province to seek financial assistance for the many

community programs that the Red Shield Campaign funds.

In the City of St. John's and surrounding area, there will be over 400

volunteers seeking our support to help the community based outreach ministries

that the Salvation Army provide right here.

This program has been ongoing since 1940, when $1 million was raised in the

first campaign held in the United States. Since that time, the Red Shield Appeal

has grown immensely, with financial objectives continuing to rise out of

necessity.

The Salvation Army are well recognized in our Province for their assistance

to those in need and I ask that all hon. members and citizens of this Province

remember them when they come knocking on your door tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House of a new youth initiative developed by

the Council of the Federation which consists of all provincial and territorial

premiers. This summer two participants from each province and territory will be

selected to participate in a Youth Forum aimed at increasing youth engagement in

Canadian public affairs.

Mr. Speaker, youth between the ages of nineteen and twenty-two are invited to

submit an essay addressing the following question: What do you think governments

and the Council of the Federation could do to capture your interest and

involvement in Canadian federalism and public affairs?

The essays, which must be received no later than May 15, will be reviewed by

the Institute for Public Administration of Canada and winners will be notified

by June 15. The forum will take place June 28 to June 30 as part of the Council

of the Federation Annual General Meeting.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative is critical as the future of our Province and

country hinges on youth participation, involvement and education. Throughout

this invaluable and unique learning opportunity, the Council of the Federation

aims to engage youth in meaningful dialogue on issues relating to Canadian

federalism and public affairs.

I am very, very pleased to announce this initiative today and I am proud of

our Province's involvement in the forum. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

encourage all interested young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to submit

essays. I am excited to see the outcome of this opportunity and I am confident

that the Province will be well represented.

The forum will take place at Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Council of the

Federation is delighted to provide financial support to all youths who are

selected. For more information on the Youth Forum, please visit www.gov.nl.ca .

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, having just celebrated a birthday yesterday, I can tell you if I

was in this age category instead of where I am, I would be applying. I would

certainly send in the essay and talk about the virtues of the Council of the

Federation.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, the Council of the Federation was an

initiative which - I guess the name of it, and the Premier would confirm this -

largely came from some work done in Quebec, but it was very largely supported.

The idea for it came from Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia in an

opportunity to give the provinces a greater and more equal say in their dealings

Newfoundland and Labrador, a full and active participant in the Council.

I must say, I do commend the Council as well, the premiers and the leaders of

the provinces and the territories, in terms of recognizing one thing, that you

need to have the young people of the country informed as to what the initiative

is, informed as to what the Council actually stands for and what it is trying to

accomplish. This is a great way, as I see it, to allow that to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I commend all of them for coming up with this initiative to give the young

people in this age category, nineteen to twenty-two, an opportunity to

participate. I am sure they will learn a lot and they will be great supporters

of a greater and more equal say for the provinces and territories involved in

place for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say that I, too, support the notion of this type of

forum and way of young people to participate in a new - if I may call it -

institution, I guess, of federal-provincial relations, the Council of the

Federation. It is an important step in trying to have the provinces have more

changing our Constitution at this stage. It is a good way for young people to

understand and contribute to how that institution may make for a better Canada.

So, I support this initiative and I certainly hope that the Council of the

Federation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I hope the Council of the Federation, when it meets the end

of June as part of its annual general meeting, that it may have some greater

care which is so greatly needed across the country, and it requires significant

federal initiatives to do that. I hope that the Premier and the other members of

the Council of the Federation will be effective in achieving that goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to, briefly again, ask the Premier, on behalf

of the government, if he would confirm that it is, indeed, the government's

intention today to proceed with the passage of back-to-work legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated on Thursday, when we last met in this House, we

decided that we would - actually decided on Wednesday - extend the time period

for negotiation. We did do that and we extended it out until today. During that

period, if I remember correctly, I think on Friday we received an offer from Mr.

Puddister and NAPE which was considered by our officials, the Minister of

Finance and the President of Treasury if his officials consider it. They

actually then met on Saturday and we had discussions on it with regard to

looking at various modifications and counter proposals that we could come back

to the union with regard to sick leave. We did, in fact, prepare those. We did,

in fact, prepare those. We did, in fact, meet on Sunday morning - and I say we,

I was in the building, however the minister and one of our negotiators met with

Mr. Puddister and Mr. Reynolds. That meeting took two and a half hours. I think

every possible alternative was explored, at least the ones that were left on the

table. Unfortunately, the parties could not come to a mutual agreement, and at

that point, I think, negotiations had virtually come to an end.

Of course, the day is still on and there is still time left, and if there is

another position that has to be put forward we are always open to that position.

The government's intention, today, is to proceed with the legislation which is

before the House.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier or the President of Treasury Board, as the

chief negotiator for the government, confirm that union negotiators and the

government have exchanged correspondence, or a letter, that could form the basis

for settling the school board hours of work issue which is commonly referred to

as the Warren Report? Is that true or not?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can just speak from the government point of view, and from the government

point of view, no, we have not exchanged anything that indicated that is the

case.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Strange! That is the exact opposite of what is reported in the media, Mr.

Speaker.

I will go on to the next question. Can the Premier confirm that he, in fact,

personally, according to the media reports - because that is what I go by, I don't

go by secret meetings as is suggested by the government - has offered the unions

a sick leave arrangement which is significantly different from the arrangement

that is actually in the back-to-work legislation that we are going to be

debating today?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We put numerous different options out there. We have publicly indicated the

one that was the twelve, eighteen and twenty-four. We threw other options out,

available on Sunday, a whole variety of options, and we have indicated, you

know: Could we get settlement on this issue, on the school board issue, the wage

issue and so on? If we could, on one hand, recognize savings in one area, we

could look at making some marginal movement on the salary basis, if we can

effect changes in these two other areas. That was in the context overall.

Yes, we did put and support numerous proposals. We spent most of the two and

a half hours on Sunday dealing with different options. We broke and they

discussed it, and we went in and discussed options and came back to the table

again, but we didn't get any compromise on the sick leave whatsoever. We did

not get to the other two issues because sick leave predominated that, and we

hadn't come to any conclusion on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to finish his answer.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier, or again the President of Treasury Board,

confirm the media reports which suggest that the government has expressed a

willingness to offer a modest increase above the salary proposals that are in

the legislation before this Legislature today? Is that true or not?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he was listening, I just answered that in the previous question's

response. I said that if we could get an arrangement on sick leave that would

have some savings, and on the Warren Report, we could be prepared to move a bit

on that, but we cannot give out with one hand if we cannot get savings on the

other hand. I have answered that in his previous question, too, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question again by suggesting to the

government, for their consideration, that we consider today an opportunity which

we, as the official Opposition, would offer to revert to the Committee stage and

allow the government an opportunity to put into the legislation, which they seem

determined to pass, their latest offer to the unions with respect to sick leave,

their latest position with respect to the hours of work, and their latest

position with respect to salary and wages for the four-year period.

Our commitment - and I ask if the government would be willing to reach out to

the workers in this manner. Would the government be interested in putting its

offer to these workers, through their unions, into the legislation, by agreement

and without debate from us, rather than debating and trying to pass, which they

can some time today, a bill that actually gives them less than they have said at

the bargaining table that they are willing to offer to them? Would they like to

take us up on an opportunity to revert today, no debate from us, no delay, put

in the legislation what you have offered at the bargaining table, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have indicated that the issues outstanding, we were discussing all of the

issues, if we could get an agreement on all issues, that one was dependent upon

another; because, how can you give out salary on one hand if you do not get

savings on the other hand?

My answer to that, are we going to revert? - we have had ample time, and they

have had ample time, to voice their opinion - the answer to that, Mr. Speaker,

is no. We have been four months dealing with this issue. In four months the

unions have not moved one bit on that issue of sick leave. We have made numerous

proposals on sick leave. He was concerned and talking about the workers. The

workers did not have a chance to voice their opinion on any of our offers, Mr.

Speaker. Not one single offer did they get a chance to voice their opinion on

and vote on.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can get the point across by asking the question

this way. Today, as I understand it, is May 3. The items that are in the

legislation reflect the position of the government on March 31, with respect to

sick leave, the Warren Report, and the salaries. There have been countless

exchanges at the bargaining table since.

Would the government not consider, in fairness to the workers, the employees

whom they value, in fairness to the process, that it makes more sense and is

more just to put into the legislation the last position that they discussed at

the bargaining table, rather than putting into law the position that is now over

a month old?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was also a five-year proposal on March 31, I want to say to the Leader

of the Opposition. Discussions at the table, I made it quite clear, and we were

very clear in all our written presentations to them, they were discussed as an

entire package. Even previous ones were mentioned as an entire package. We

discussed numerous options at the table and they were not prepared to move on

any of these, Mr. Speaker.

Quite clearly, what is in the legislation is in the legislation. We tried

everything we could to move and get a compromise and get them to move on issues

that we were prepared to discuss. It did not happen, Mr. Speaker. It is

unfortunate that it did not happen. What is in the legislation is in the

legislation. He is only playing games to go back now and discuss something that

was discussed last week and so on. That is not logical, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, let me try just one last time on the

issue to see if we can get some reason into this, instead of just the

my-way-or-the-highway approach.

The government acknowledges that they have made some very different offers in

the last thirty-two or thirty-three days. Rather than punish the workers, the

20,000 public employees, because they did not agree with the position, why does

the President of Treasury Board and the Premier, why do they both not see the

logic of putting into the legislation - which they are going to do today anyway

- their last offer of the last weekend and the parking lot, rather than an offer

of some thirty-three days ago that is less than what government voluntarily

offered these same people in the last two or three days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is not as simple as that. We have tried several different

types of solutions, several variations, several creative formats, in order to

try and reach an agreement on sick leave. The conversation that myself and Mr.

Puddister had on the parking lot was a compromise which we felt was a very, very

fair compromise, a very reasonable compromise; one, in fact, where we would

achieve twelve days in the first ten years, the next fifteen years would be a

compromise position of eighteen days, and then twenty-five going forward after

that would be twenty-four. We would get the twelve that we needed on the front

end, the union would get the twenty-four that they needed on the back end, when

people were older and people needed more sick leave. We felt that was very fair.

The President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance this weekend came up

with a proposal, which was a modification of the twelve days, which talked about

the twelve days which we have on the table, and also looking at an exceptional

circumstance situation, if someone had a very serious illness, where we could

find a way to accommodate them in that particular manner.

The other thing we have done is that we have set benchmarks whereby if

certain benchmarks were achieved then the twelve days would be pulled off the

table, but this was all part of a package of proposals. We were talking about

salary, we were talking about Warren, we were talking about sick leave

variations. We have done everything possible to come up here with a reasonable

compromise. Mr. Puddister knows that, Mr. Lucas knows it, Mr. Reynolds knows it.

We have done everything to get a negotiated agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That opportunity was there all weekend. That opportunity was there during the

two-and-a-half hours which they met on Sunday. It was not accepted. The union

obviously does not want it and would not accept it, and therefore we had no

other alternative than to proceed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me try one more time, because it just seems that we are up against a

brick wall here, which I can understand what some people deal with sometimes.

The Premier himself just described a new package as being one that is very fair.

He is going to dictate, and order by law, a resolution. There is no agreement in

any event. If he thinks the last one, if he thinks the parking deal, is the

right one, is the fair one, which has a very different sick leave proposal,

offers some more money and settles the school board issue, why won't they

today, with our agreement and without any delay, dictate that settlement that he

just described as being a total package and very fair, rather than one that is

five weeks old and is a whole lot worse?

If it is fair for the 20,000 employees, why don't they put it on paper

today and ram that one through the Legislature instead of one that is unfair and

is five weeks old? That is the question. Put your own fair proposal that you

just described on the table today. There will be no delay from us. You are going

to dictate something anyway. Dictate the latest offer and stop trying to be

punitive and vindictive with people because they stood up for what they believed

in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We looked at numerous options. We have said to the -

MR. GRIMES: The last one (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to the question if he would give me time, Mr.

Speaker.

We said to him: Look, let's start and everybody keep twenty-four days. Let's

keep that until December 31, 2005, one of the options we put forward as a

possibility. We indicated, Mr. Speaker, that then if we do not get to the

targets, twelve days will kick in. We never gave those options contingent on

salary increases. The previous option we figured there could be movement and so

on, if we can get compromise. We went beyond what we ever anticipated we would

move to try to get a settlement in many options. They were discussed at the

table. They were not firm offers. They were options we discussed at the table,

basically, that is part of an entire package. The Leader of the Opposition is

trying to take them now and trying to piecemeal hear and there. He should

understand that if you are paying out money on one hand, you have to be able to

save it on the other hand because we are in a difficult fiscal situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - the worst in our history because he played a big

part in

putting us in this situation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as I thought and suspected all along, there is no reason or rationale or

logic. It is just a matter of putting in something that was put in a bill that

was there a month ago, regardless of what has happened since. I am sure we will

be interested in seeing the group opposite today stand up and defend that to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One last question, a different one altogether, Mr. Speaker. The Government

House Leader on Thursday past gave notice that the government today intends to

adjourn the Legislature and take a break for the remainder of this week. Could I

ask the Premier: What is the real reason for us taking a recess now? We are

going to ram this offensive legislation through today. There are twelve pieces

of legislation that the government already has on the Order Paper. We have not

even started debate. We have not debated the Budget. We have not seen the auto

insurance reform. What is the real reason that the government thinks we need to

take a break from the Legislature when the place has not been open for a full

year, Mr Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, normally during Easter there is a

recess of approximately two weeks when time is taken off. That was evaded this

year. That was past by and it was not taken. We still have a government to run.

We have to get on with doing the business of government and there is a lot to be

done. For example, the alternative today of being in Houston, a conference that

you have attended yourself on several occasions. It is a very, very important

conference to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I have decided that

in the interest of what is going on in this House today that I have stayed here.

However, as you can appreciate as a former Premier, there is lots of very

important business that has to be done. We need to take two days from the House

of Assembly, as a Cabinet and as a caucus, to deal with the business of

government and to deal with the business of our constituents. But we will be

back next week and we are prepared to go right through the night next week, if

that is what you so wish and, if necessary, we will go right through until July.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier suggesting then, and did he just say - I thought I heard him

say - that he, and the government that he leads, cannot govern Newfoundland and

Labrador and have the Legislature open at the same time? Is that what I just

heard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We spent the last month here debating the Budget, and we have been caught up

in very, very important matters. The public sector strike is a huge issue and of

course it has taken a lot of our time and a lot of our energy, as we have

devoted every single ounce of energy that we have in our collective bodies to

try and get a resolution of this particular dispute. But, there are matters that

are backed up. There were numerous people who could not get into this building

because they could not cross picket lines. There were meetings that were

cancelled, several dozens of important meetings that were cancelled. These

people now need to meet with government and we need to make ourselves available.

That is why there will be two working days taken off in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on last Thursday I asked the Premier a very important question

and he sloughed it off to his Finance Minister. So, now Mr. Premier, you have

another chance today to stand on your feet and tell the people of this House and

the people of the Province: How much has government spent on media ads,

overtime, meals for management, image consultants, public opinion polling,

police protection, riot gear, rented decoy vehicles, and your personal bodyguard

during the recent, unnecessary strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are lots of expenses that are incurred through different departmental

budgets, that is obvious. Lots of the costs do not come in for some time down

the road. I can tell you what was spent totally on advertising. I am aware of

what was spent there. Including giving advanced notice, what public services are

available and road conditions and response that you have seen to the offers of

the unions, in total there was a little over $200,000, of which the majority was

spent on letting people know -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Member for Bellevue would permit me to answer, Mr.

Speaker, I will try to do that..

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The majority of that $200,000 - just slightly over $200,000

- was spent on making people aware of what services were available to the

public, whether it be health or road conditions and those types of things. That

was the majority of that $200,000. Less than $100,000, I would tell the member,

was spent on the whole advertising thing, including making people aware of

public services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that your government will be held accountable on that.

Mr. Premier, in your new approach budget to growing the economy your way,

your Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board slapped 150 increases

in fees and licences on ordinary people in this Province. Now, today, we hear

you have a new plan to shaft the small businesses of our Province. You are

expecting them to pay upfront in order to sell salmon and small game licences. I

ask the Premier, does he realize the problems his government is causing for

small businesses around rural Newfoundland ? Do you realize that creating this

situation, where people must pay upfront, that you created a situation where

only large chain stores will be able to sell those licences?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last five years government has lost almost $200,000

because of some vendors not paying the fees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if the members across the floor would allow

me to answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, in the last five years government has lost

almost $200,000 because of some vendors not paying. All retail outlets, Mr.

Speaker, pay upfront for their retail goods. All retail outlets pay upfront for

- whether it be beer, confectionary items, this is no different. The retail

outlets are making $3 per licence. That will continue. They do not have to buy

all of them upfront. They can buy a certain amount and as they run short, order

another amount. We will continue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer, quickly.

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

We will continue to provide these licences to the retail outlets, of which

they make a commission on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Premier, it is clear that you consult with no one; not

your urban Cabinet, and for sure not your caucus. In fact, I do not say you

consulted with anybody in rural Newfoundland and Labrador before you brought

down this policy today.

Premier, you are known to have an extensive background in business and you

are the Minister of Business. When you consider - I want to know what your take

on this is: Do you think this is a fair deal for small business owners in rural

Newfoundland? If they are going to sell government salmon licences and small

game licences, they have to put their money upfront. They are going to lose 3

per cent or 4 per cent if a customer comes in to use their visa card. They have

to do all the paperwork. In fact, there are three copies for a salmon licence

and the tags to go along with it, then they have to wait sixty days to be

reimbursed from the government. Now, Mr. Premier, will you tell your minister to

cancel this stupid policy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our government has one of the lowest small business taxes of anywhere in the

country. Twenty-some-hundred businesses, in addition to that, were exempted from

the payroll tax - many in there. So, we are very conscious -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are very conscious that no extra costs in

taxation would be put and hurt small businesses in the Province, because small

businesses are the backbone of this economy. We want to help small businesses

grow in this economy and make Newfoundland and Labrador more prosperous.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, we have seen what appears to be another failed

attempt by this minister to settle the impasse between fishermen and processors.

Today we have heard that there are fishermen on the water fishing for crab and

in a few days they will be landing this crab in Nova Scotia.

I ask the minister: What does he plan to do about this?

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

Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member is talking about; another failed

attempt. First of all, Mr. Speaker, talks, as I understand it, just before

coming into the House, are still ongoing down at the Fairmont. We have appointed

three people as a mediation panel between processors and the Fishermen's

Union. As far as I know, that process is still ongoing. My understanding is that

both parties are very close on monetary issues, but there are some outstanding

issues. We hope sometime this afternoon to have a deal, Mr. Speaker.

As for boats that are sailing, Mr. Speaker, the member knows that is not an

uncommon occurrence. That has been going on for quite a number of years from the

southern part of 3O and 3PS. There were many instances over the past couple of

hundred years where boats have sailed to Nova Scotia to sell catch.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about talks being ongoing for

over a month, just like they were with the public sector unions, but even today

we still don't have an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the public of the Province knows that there are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at him laughing. Gerry, look at the Premier laughing

at you.

MR. REID: Exactly, because the Premier doesn't mind what happens to the

plant workers and the fishermen in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is asking a question, I ask the co-operation of all members of the

House to allow him to ask his question without interruption.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order raised by the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just to set the record very straight, a light remark

was made the Member for Grand Falls and I smiled in response to that remark. I

was certainly not smiling about the issue, and it is a shame that they are

trying to distort that to represent that. It was just a jovial comment made

between two hon. members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The rules of this House apply to everyone, including the Premier. I would

respectfully ask the Chair - the rule is, you don't disrupt and make points of

order during Question Period, and the time that the Premier took away during

Question Period ought to be added to Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule there is no point of order.

Again, I say to hon. members: When we have points to be made during Question

Period we should not raise them during Question Period unless it is absolutely

necessary, and this time will be added to the length of Question Period towards

the end.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the public of the Province know that there are a number of fish

merchants out there from this Province who own crab processing facilities in the

Maritimes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Falcon Group of Companies which operates

the plant in Burgeo has moved the crab processing equipment from that plant to

Canso, Nova Scotia, where they could be processing Newfoundland crab in the next

couple of days.

I ask the minister: What do you have to say about this and what are you going

to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the previous ministers had done

something to address the fundamental problems in the industry over the past five

years, maybe we would not be confronted with this today.

Mr. Speaker, as I said when we rolled out the Dunne Report on February 4,

there are fundamental problems in this fishing industry that need to be

addressed. We laid out what government is going to do from a policy perspective.

The matter that is before us today, both in the shrimp industry and the crab

industry, is a dispute over price. That is an issue which must be resolved

between the union and the processors. We have stepped in on numerous occasions

over the past couple of months to try and help facilitate the process to get

this fishery opened. We have allowed, or encouraged, a Final Offer Selection,

binding arbitration mechanism, to take place on shrimp, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: What happened then, Mr. Speaker, we found that when the

decision came down, one side would not live with the outcome.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister knows full well what the situation is in the

crab and shrimp industry here in this Province, and we are doing everything that

we can to encourage the fishery to take place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member talks a lot about the past, while doing nothing. We have evidenced

that here for the last month in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen too many of our resources go elsewhere to be

processed. I ask the minister: What is he going to do to ensure that the plant

workers in this Province are the ones who get to process our crab, rather than

the plant workers in Nova Scotia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the minister answers, I would remind the minister to keep his answer

short because we do have obligations time wise to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member is fully aware, any boat in this Province that can

steam across the Gulf is free to go over there and land their crab, but there

will not be any relaxation by this government or this minister of the provincial

requirement that fish landed in this Province must be processed in this

Province. It will not be allowed to go across the Gulf, Mr. Speaker, consistent

with the policy that has been in place for many years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

What we have been hearing about over the last number of days, and here in the

House this afternoon, is merely a failure of negotiation, which does not justify

the kind of paternalistic, autocratic, punitive legislation that is contained in

Bill 18.

Does the Premier not acknowledge that he is here today using a sledgehammer

that will have the effect of destroying the house-called collective bargaining

in the public sector by passing Bill 18 today? Will he not acknowledge that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding with this legislation today because we have

to. We have done absolutely everything we can to try and reach an agreement. You

cannot reach an agreement with a party that does not want to reach an agreement

with you. We have done everything possible to try and reach an agreement. We

have provided several alternatives, several options. It was all about options,

it was all about packages, and that has been going on for a considerable period

of time. We now have no other alternative but to proceed with this legislation.

We did not want to. We did not want to in the beginning. It was a last resort.

We said that from day one. Now we are on the last day and we have to proceed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the big failures, of course, is the failure of the Premier to realize

that the unions had no mandate to negotiate a two-tiered system and could never

agree to it.

Mr. Speaker, if this Premier is insisting on passing legislation today, and

has refused the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that they negotiate

the last offer, will he not acknowledge that the legislation is, in fact,

punitive to workers in the Province and is really designed to try and drive a

wedge between the leadership and the membership of the public sector workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the hon. members opposite are now asking us to

go back to a Committee so that they can vote in favour of something that they

voted against the other evening at second reading in Committee, because that is

exactly what you did. That is exactly what you did.

With regard to any kind of a wedge that has happened between the union

leadership and the union membership, Mr. Speaker, that wedge has been

self-inflicted. We take no responsibility whatsoever for that, no responsibility

whatsoever. We put a proposal forward that we feel, if it had gone to the

membership, would have been accepted as a very, very fair, a very reasonable and

an affordable proposal from government's perspective. We can do no more than

that. It is up to the unions, their leadership and their membership to pull

together on that side. We have no control over that.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday we received a proposal that was signed by the

President of NAPE. We received a press release that talked about a moratorium

for thirty to forty days from CUPE. We received a second-hand oral offer from

CUPE, which came from the other side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to finish his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Offers are coming all over the place. Collectively they are not together. It

is impossible to negotiate with that kind of a group.

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for one quick supplementary question.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

employment by this Premier. Will he not acknowledge that what he is doing here,

really, is getting his own way through legislation because he could not get it

at the bargaining table?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it kind of ironic that all the people on that side of the House stood

here after two months of negotiating at the individual tables, almost 200 pages

of agreed items in

Schedule C, each of them stood and voted against putting into

this legislation items that were agreed on by both sides after two months. They

did not want that here. Now, they stand up again and ask questions to go back

and amend it, to do what? To correct what they did when they voted against

everything that was agreed on? That is politics, Mr. Speaker, that is politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, actually, touching on two

issues that were just raised by the Premier and the President of Treasury Board,

because it is critically important to the debate we are going to have for the

rest of this day. It points out again the Premier either does not listen, Mr.

Speaker, or does not understand what he is being told.

He suggested that we, as the Opposition - the proposition I put forward in

Question Period - wanted to go back to the Committee stage to vote for the

changes. That is completely wrong. I never ever said that, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, and Hansard will show this, what I said is that if the

government, out of a sense of fairness, would put its latest package, that he

described as fair, on the table today, we would not delay the debate. We would

not debate it and we would not delay it. We are never going to vote for it. We

did not vote for it the last time, the last eighteen votes, and we are not going

to vote for it today. Again, he did not understand. Maybe that strikes to the

very root of the issue and the problem in bargaining, Mr. Speaker, either not

listening or not understanding.

The second one, and the President of Treasury Board has said this three or

four times, the amendments in

Schedule C, which are the items that have been

agreed to at the bargaining table, in these collective agreements by the

parties, there are some items in here that they have reached an agreement on,

and the President of Treasury Board stands up and says: We do not want those to

be put into place.

He should know, if he is going to stop misleading the people, that at any

point in time -

MR. SULLIVAN: You voted against it.

MR. GRIMES: We did vote against it, he said, and we did.

At any point in time, if he would stand up and acknowledge it, the parties,

even the first day after a new collective agreement is signed, by mutual

agreement - which is what has happened with this; they have mutually agreed to

make these changes - you can make those changes any time by mutual agreement.

You do not need a piece of legislation to do what has already been agreed to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, make no wonder they have made a mess of the

whole process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would know that points of order should

relate to some procedural problems that the House might have. There is no point

of order, because obviously this is continuing a debate and has carried over

from Question Period. It might be a point of explanation, but there is certainly

no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a new point of order, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a direct question to yourself, as the Chair:

Would you rule it is a point of order about procedure if we are asking for

clarification that the very fundamental of the debate that we are going to have

for the rest of this day and tonight hinges upon answers given by the Premier

and the President of Treasury Board, and that the answers that they have given

are both absolutely, totally false? Isn't that a point of order in terms of

how we proceed for the rest of the day?

We are supposed to proceed based on factual information given by the leaders

and spokespersons for the government. They have both given an answer which is

absolutely and totally false. They know the difference. Why won't they stand

up and acknowledge that so we can have a sensible debate for the rest of the

day, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

First of all, we have to be always cognizant that when we address each other

we do so in terms of words that respect the integrity of all hon. members.

Secondly, while the Leader of the Opposition may very well have a point of

view, the Chair has no role in determining what should be the subject of

negotiations between the respective House Leaders. If House Leaders can meet

together and can decide on issues and the way in which this House should

proceed, but it is not for this Chair to decide the manner in which this House

proceeds to handle issues that come before the House. The Chair has no role,

whatsoever, in deciding how the House will proceed today but only assuring that

the rules of this House are respected and appropriately applied. I ask all hon.

members, again, in addressing each other, please try to respect each other and

give each other the integrity that we all deserve as parliamentarians.

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe you ruled on that particular point of order.

All I wanted to say is that it certainly was not a point of order. It is the

Leader of the Opposition, under the guise of a point of order, taking an

opportunity to debate an answer he did not like earlier in the day, and that is

clearly against the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought the Chair had made it quite clear that there was

no point of order because there has been no infractions of the parliamentary

process and the Standing Orders, and any other references that we have.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to 26.5(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one

Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2005-2006 fiscal

year.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I move the following private

member's motion:

WHEREAS there has been no comprehensive study which shows reorganization of

the school boards in this Province will either save money or result in better

educational delivery;

WHEREAS this restructuring has been undertaken in a hasty and unorganized

fashion that could result in many problems within our K to 12 education system;

WHEREAS political patronage has been used to appoint transitional chairs to

replace duly elected school chairs;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to halt any

school board reorganization until proper studies and proper public input can be

obtained.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present the following petition on behalf of the students and

parents of Carbonear area:

WHEREAS parents and students in Carbonear do not want to have their school

close and unnecessarily bus students to Harbour Grace; and

WHEREAS existing school boards now cease to exist; and

WHEREAS the decision to close St. Mary's primary school in St. John's has

been reversed; and

WHEREAS the new school in Carbonear is necessary;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to reverse the decision of the Avalon West School Board to

close St. Joseph's school, reverse the decision to bus students to Harbour

Grace and commit funds to construct a new school in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday hundreds of people gathered in Carbonear to

voice their concerns through the means of a massive rally and a motorcade

throughout the town to show their concerns to the public, and the Town of

Carbonear, just how important it is that they maintain their school system.

Presently, as it stands, St. Joseph's school and Davis Elementary are in the

vicinity of thirty-five years old; both of them have major deficiencies.

The school board last year, through the appeal process - the parents won the

first case. The school board went back through the appeal process and decided to

close the school of St. Joseph's. Shortly after that was done, an announcement

was going to be made that the students from K to 6 would be bussed to Harbour

Grace and the other school, Davis Elementary, would accommodate the balance. The

problem with all that, Mr. Speaker, is that the school in Harbour Grace - St.

Francis is not ready. There are major deficiencies at that school. Davis

Elementary, as it already stands, has been the subject of a number of

engineering reports stating that the school is not up to standard - by any

standards - for today's children to receive proper schooling.

I was in a classroom last year where you had to climb in over desks to get to

the inside of the school. It was part of a library in that school which was

chopped up to make an extra classroom. The desks were packed in so tight that

the students were not able to walk in and walk down an aisle, or in any orderly

manner to get to their seats. They had to climb over each others seats. Mr.

Speaker, it is a fire hazard to say the least. The parents are saying that there

is nothing unreasonable here to maintain the status quo for at least another

year to give the new board - which was appointed by this government just a

little while ago - amble opportunity to review the situation again and just look

at the foolhardiness of what is happening here in this particular situation. The

parents and students all agree, and not only the parents and students, but all

the school councils in the area have all met and condemn the actions of that

school board. I have been a part of this process, and I say to the parliamentary

secretary, to the Minister of Education, he has been part of it for the past two

years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: A moment to clue up. Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I just wish to conclude by saying that I have a feeling this

will be one of many petitions to come. There is a tremendous amount of interest

in both communities out there. As a matter of fact, in all of the communities,

as this whole picture unravels and the necessity of making the right decision

for that particular area becomes more and more important.

Thank you, Mr. speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents from the

Southwestern region of this Province, particularly from Rose Blanche to

Stephenville, concerning the health care suggestions that there may be a

downgrading in terms of the services available at the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow

Health Centre at Port aux Basques, or in the clinics in the Codroy Valley and in

Rose Blanche. It is signed by about eighty people. This is number eight petition

that I have presented in this House, by about 2,000 people to date.

There was a meeting last evening in Port aux Basques and there are some

photographs circulating, in fact, today about those who were not there - some

empty chairs and some names on them. People were very disappointed at the

meeting. It was a public meeting, well advertised. Government representatives

were asked to attend. All government members declined, for the second time. The

Minister of Health declined, the Premier declined, and the Member for

Stephenville East was not present. I just say to those members that the people

at the public meeting were very upset - not with the fact that they did not get

answers to their questions, but the fact there was no one there even to ask a

question of.

We have parliamentary secretaries to ministers, to either one of the

ministers named. We have parliamentary secretaries. We have departmental staff

who could certainly have made themselves available. The Deputy Mayor of Port aux

Basques went through twice and had made written requests to government members

to at least show up and tell us where they stand on this issue, or tell them

what the facts are. That was refused on both occasions and no one showed up.

It is not bad enough that the issue does not get dealt with or cannot even be

dealt with until later down the road when the HAY committee comes in, but that

does not do away with the disrespect that the people of Western Newfoundland are

shown by at least not having someone turn up to give some kind of answers. I

cannot put into words strong enough, the displeasure and the disappointment with

the people there from my district, from the Member for Stephenville East, who

vocally said, and it all was recorded - who did not have the courtesy and

decency to show up and at least answer or try to answer some of the people's

questions.

I have about another fifty such petitions to present in this House, and until

such time as someone in this government is prepared to acknowledge that

Southwestern Newfoundland exists, and that we have some problems, I shall

continue to make this point and press this point to the people of this Province.

Contrary to the laugh and the smirk that the Member for Ferryland has on his

face, health care is very serious to the people in Western Newfoundland, and we

shall continue to make our point.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was speaking with the Leader of the Opposition there, on

that. I was not directly making a statement to him at all. If, in any way, he

took offence to that, and thought it was, I certainly apologize, but I was just

having a conversation with the Leader of the Opposition sitting next to him. If

I offended him, I apologize for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I ask the hon. the Opposition House Leader if he is finished his

presentation. There is about twenty-five seconds remaining.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have finished for today. I just wanted to make the point that this is

a very serious issue and it will not go away. Someone should have the decency to

let those people out there know what the government's position is, or what the

facts are.

I cannot tell them because I have been refused any information. I have been

asking this minister in this House several times in the past three or four

weeks. I just implore you again to at least acknowledge to the people on the

Southwest Coast of this Province that they exist and they are valued.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32, I move Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Acting Government House Leader has risen on

Standing Order 32. It says, "A motion for reading the orders of the day

shall have preference to any motion before the House."

I do believe that it has been a practice here that this is consistent with

Standing Order 32. I read that to mean that the government is now ready to

proceed with the Orders of the Day. If that is the case, then the Chair has to

recognize that Standing Order 32 applies.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order and clarification, I guess.

The Acting Government House Leader has risen to invoke rule 32. Just so

people in the Province understand, and I guess it is our understanding over

here, what government is doing here is cutting off the ability of the Opposition

to present petitions of the people in this House, which takes three minutes,

according to our rules, to present a petition, of which there was one more to

present; three minutes, in a day, I might add, that we already have been given

notice of last Thursday, that is not going to end at 5:30 p.m., that is not

going to end at 10:00 p.m,. and we have the government, with its heavy-handed

hobnail boots approach again, saying that this member over here cannot be given

three minutes to present a petition from his district. I just want to clarify,

that is the type of approach this new government, with its new approach, is

taking.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing whether the Opposition has one more

petition or 100 more petitions to present. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, the Opposition will have until July, if they want it, to present

petitions, but at the moment the government is moving, under Standing Order 32,

that we proceed with Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I assumed that the Acting Government House Leader was speaking to the point

or order which has been raised by the Opposition House Leader.

In this particular case there is no point or order because the Standing

Orders of our House are quite clear. Whether or not the government gives leave

to the member to present his petition is entirely up to the government, not up

to the Chair.

I call again on the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 6 and Motion 7, which would be that

this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., nor will the House adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that we have to have a motion that the Orders of the Day be now

read, because it says here, "A motion for reading the orders of the

day...".

Therefore, we do need a motion that the Orders of the Day do now be read,

before we can proceed to any other business.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I move that the

Orders of the Day now be read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Orders of the Day be now read.

All those in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 6 and Motion 7. That is that this

House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have consent that both motions would be handled

together? The motion is, that they would be handled together. Or, shall we

handle them separately? Do we have agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Together.

MR. SPEAKER: Handle them together.

It is moved, pursuant to Motion 6 and Motion 7, that this House not adjourn

at 5:30 today nor at 10 o'clock in the evening.

Persons in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motions are carried.

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, please, third reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide

For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services." (Bill 18).

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to speak to third reading of Bill

18. I will not take a long time.

Government, Mr. Speaker, over the last several days, have not been in any

rush to move this piece of legislation through third reading. We have taken a

number of days since we finished the second reading debate and the Committee

debate to give the process an opportunity to work. Over the course of that time,

as I understand it from my colleagues the Premier and the President of Treasury

Board, there have been a number of discussions take place between both parties

with a view to bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion.

I think it is now obvious, Mr. Speaker, to all concerned, that is not

possible. The reasons why it is not possible, I guess, depend on which side of

the question you are on. The fact of the matter is, it has now become obvious

that it is not possible to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of that, I believe it is fair and right and

proper that government proceed to do what it has to do.

We know that under our collective bargaining laws the old contract can stay

in place until a new one is negotiated, we know that, but, Mr. Speaker, there

have been a number of things agreed to between the parties that are beneficial

for the public employees of this Province, and this piece of legislation will do

that. It will allow to become operative, to become the law of the land, those

areas of negotiations that both parties agreed to. There were a whole number of

those, I believe, included in the

schedule to the bill that was passed here in

this House a few nights ago. So, this legislation will allow that to happen.

A couple of other things that it will allow to happen, Mr. Speaker. It will

give certainty to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the public

services of this Province will be provided by the public servants for the next

four years. People will not have to be on the kind of on again, off again - is

it today, is it tomorrow, is it next week, is it next month. It will bring

certainty and clarity to the resumption of public services in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is right and proper that the government proceed to

finalize this legislation with a view to putting in place those areas that have

been agreed to and putting in place, also, a legislated contract in areas where

there hasn't been agreement.

Mr. Speaker, having said those few words, to begin the debate on third

reading, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I move that this question be now put.

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

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

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps it is a point of order in terms of how we proceed

from here, but I understand that the acting Government House Leader has moved

what is called the previous question. I had prepared an amendment that Bill 18

be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to reconsider

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 for the purpose of ensuring that the punitive, regressive and

unnecessary measures that do not contribute to the goal of stability in the

public service be removed by amendment or deletion.

I understand that not just the measures that have been agreed to are being

put to the House, and in fact the amendment I was about to propose cannot now be

put, the acting Government House Leader having moved what is known as the

previous question, and that as a result of that everybody in the House can only

speak once and that no amendments of any kind can be put.

Is my understanding correct in that, Mr. Speaker, and is that perhaps why the

acting Government House Leader moved it.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Acting Government House

Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have to concur with the observations of my friend, the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that their amendments will not be allowed. Members will

be allowed to speak once for twenty minutes; except the Leader of the Opposition

and the Premier, I believe, are allowed to speak for sixty minutes each. As I

say, I moved the previous question before I took my seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair concurs with the analysis put forward by both members. Once we move

to the previous question, than there can be no further amendments. In fact, it

clearly states and says: The previous question, until it is decided, shall

preclude all amendments of the main question, and shall be in the following

words, "That this question be now put." If it is resolved in the

affirmative, the original question would then be put forthwith after that

decision is made. The practice of this House is that when the previous question

is put forward, that the Leader of the Opposition can have an hour to debate it,

so can the Premier of the Province. All other members have twenty minutes. There

can be no further amendments put forward when this matter is put before the

House under Standing Order 43. So, the Chair rules that whatever negotiations

might take place, it is not for the Chair to decide. However, when Standing

Order 43 is put forward, it is the Chair's function to make sure that the

rules of the House and the Standing Orders are complied with by all members.

The debate on the previous question, the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to speak on Bill 18 which - in terms of the

bill itself and the procedure in this House - has made history in our democracy

in this Province in that, I guess, it is the first time that a bill was ever

brought before the House before any debate and closure was brought in, and what

we see with the House Leader today in third reading of a bill which eliminates

any of us from putting forward any kind of amendments to the bill, rules it out

of order and we are not able to have any input in terms of what should be in

this particular bill.

For the people around the Province, I was out in my district - as a matter of

fact, I was in Trinity-Bay de Verde attending a cadet function on the weekend

and people were coming up to me and saying: Percy, isn't it amazing? You are

in there debating a bill,

An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation

Of Public Services, and we all know that the public service went back to work

last week. There is no need to have this bill. Normally, in a bill in the House

- for people around the Province who are not used to parliamentary procedure -

normally there is the title of the bill and then there is a purpose for the

bill.

One of the things that happened when this bill came in, there was a title, An

Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services, but there

was no purpose of the bill. I guess in the debate over the last week or so we

know now what the purpose of this bill was. It is not outlined, and what the

government had indicated was that the purpose of the bill was in the title of

the bill,

An Act To Provide For Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

There is nothing further from the truth. I mean this statement and this bill is

not about legislating or putting public employees back to work. They have

already gone back to work. So why are we here today? Hon. members and people in

TV land, we are here today because the bill now should be changed to:

An act to

force a contract on public employees. That is the title of the bill that we are

debating today:

An act to force a contract on public employees.

When we hear the Minister of Finance and the Premier on the media talking

about: We are going to legislate an agreement. What foolishness! These are the

people that we put in charge of running this Province. They are saying, we are

legislating an agreement. An agreement has never been legislated in a democracy.

There is no such thing as legislating an agreement. You cannot legislate an

agreement. An agreement in the Webster's dictionary says - and, Mr. Speaker, a

former teacher like yourself knows quite well what an agreement means. An

agreement means that when two parties sit down and they come up with a

compromise. They write down what the agreement is. That is what a collective

agreement is. It is called a collective agreement.

What we are doing here today, with the iron fists of the Legislature, with

every rule that is in the book - and serving in this Legislature as a Deputy

Speaker for many years, and serving in the Chair. What we have here is not a

democracy, it is every rule in the book - this government has used every rule in

the book to limit debate and to bring closure on this particular bill. We could

see it last week, Mr. Speaker. You could probably see,

An Act To Provide For The

Resumption And Continuation Of The Public Services of the Province. When this

bill was read for the first time you could see that. We had health care workers

around this Province out on a work stoppage, on a legal work stoppage.

The Minister of Health was up one day saying everything in the health care

system was fine. No problems whatsoever, and the next day they came in and

brought in this particular bill:

An act to force people back to work, and if

they did not go back to work, the union itself would be fined $250,000, the

union leadership $25,000, and the employee who did not go back to work would be

fired. That is what we are talking about here today. So it is not emergency

legislation anymore. There is no reason for this bill to be in the House today.

As a matter of fact, two or three weeks ago the Opposition recommended a way to

resolve this particular dispute, and the law was already there in the Collective

Bargaining Act to send the issues to binding arbitration.

Even over the weekend, the one issue that was outstanding, the leaders of

NAPE and CUPE indicated to the government, they said: Okay, we will sign off on

the things that we have agreed on and send one issue only, the sick leave, to

binding arbitration. The answer from this government was: No. Why? Because their

intent in the first place, right from the beginning, right from the time that

this Cabinet was sworn in in October until the Premier went on provincial

television with his presidential address, that was their objective right from

the start.

I brought in a private member's resolution some three weeks ago calling on

government to resort to meaningful negotiations and not to legislate them back

to work and everybody on that side of the House voted against that. When I read

that - at that particular time, three weeks ago - that this was the objective, I

was hoping I was going to be wrong, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that I was going to

be wrong, but I guess I was right. That the real intention was to force a

contract on the public employees of this Province.

The other disturbing thing I heard on the weekend is that the Premier, again,

is putting another wedge in the union movement in this Province, because I think

this Premier is out to break every union in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is his objective, to break every union in this Province.

When I heard him on the news media saying: We have a little bit more. We have

another little percentage to give them in salary. Dangling the carrot, the rich

man. Dangling the carrot in front of the poor man's eyes and saying: Oh, yes,

we have another percentage. I do not know why they do not take it to the

membership.

What are you going to take to the membership? Tell me: What are you going to

take to the membership? Every time the Premier and the Minister of Finance open

their mouths, it is a different story. They twist and turn so much that they

have caused a hurricane in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of labour

relations. I never saw the like of it before in my life. No such thing as

mediation or conciliation. As a matter of fact, negotiations have now reached a

real level; we are doing it in gas stations, on the parking lots in Mount Pearl.

I think one of the union leaders the other day said: I guess the next thing we

are going to have is drive-through conciliation. Drive-through conciliation.

I just wonder. Sometimes I sit here as a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian and

I am just wondering: We have to go to Ottawa, we have to go around this world,

and try to negotiate a better deal for this Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and when they see the way that this government is acting, I wonder

what is going to happen to this Province? I have real concerns about what is

happening to this Province.

I ask every one of the hon. members on the other side, who just got elected

here six months ago - some of you are new to this particular House - I urge you

today to get up and debate this legislation. We sat here the other day and we

were the only ones who spoke, and that is the thing that I heard in Cavendish

the other day: Where are the government members? We do not hear them.

Mr. Speaker, I used to be a teacher and an educator, and you used to be a

teacher and an educator. We know what an agreement is. Now we will go to the

word, debate. What is a debate? A debate is two people, or a group of people.

One is for and the other is against. Now, we have given all of the arguments on

this side of the House why we cannot vote for this legislation. Every person on

this side of the House has stood and spoken in the debate and said what is wrong

with this particular legislation. We have not heard one member on that side get

up and argue, not one person.

The House Leader got up, and the Member for Lewisporte and the Minister of

Transportation got up, and they never said one word about this particular

legislation when we were in Committee on the bill. They got up and talked a lot

of nonsense but they never talked about the bill.

What I am saying to the Premier - and our leader said it today - whatever you

have that you are going to give to the public employees, lay it on the table.

This is the people's House of Assembly. If you have things that are there in

terms of salaries, in terms of sick leave, that are better, and in terms of the

Warren Report that are better than was negotiated at the end of March, lay it on

the table. Give these people at least the decency to offer them and legislate

what had been agreed to in the last stages of the last two or three days.

We have the little carrot of the 1 per cent or 2 per cent. In the same news

item, right after, on the weekend, I was out in my district listening to the

news, and there was something that was really, really disturbing and has great

concern for me in terms of where we are going as a society. At the same time

that the Premier was saying we have this little carrot, this little 1 per cent

or what have you that we are going to give to the janitors, the secretaries, and

all of that, some of the lowest paid people we have in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, he was going to give them a generous - there was a

little carrot there with another 1 per cent. He made such a big deal out of it.

I tell you, in the next news item there was a news story about the Premier's

buddies. The average salary of CEOs in this country, this year, is $3.5 million.

That is the average salary of CEOs, the friends that the Premier golfs with. The

Premier's golfing buddies are being paid $3.5 million. I have a hard job

trying to say that, $3.5 million.

I say to the Member for Lake Melville, do not go laughing and carrying on,

because this is very serious. There are a lot of people working with the public

service in your district, so we expect you to get up and talk about the

legislation.

I am concerned about what is happening in this country. I am concerned when

CEOs of companies can make $3.5 million. Mr. Speaker, do you know how much an

hour the average CEO makes in this country? Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars

an hour, a CEO makes. Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars. The CEO of a company

that takes off to a golf game with the Premier, and it is a three-hour golf game

- I do not know because I do not play golf - anyway, the CEO, for that golf

game, would get paid roughly around $5,000 for the three hours.

We have a janitor out in our schools, working like a slave, trying to keep

the schools tidy and clean for our children - our future, as a matter of fact,

our children - and I could imagine if the janitor of the schools was listening

to that news bulletin that I listened to, that CEOs were going to get $1,750 an

hour. Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars an hour.

To make the best of it, do you know what their wage increase for this year is

going to be? Their wage increase this year for CEOs is going to be 8.5 per cent;

an 8.5 per cent increase. For the top CEOs in this country, their salary

increase this year is 8.5 per cent, and the hon. members on the other side are

saying to our janitors and our secretaries, and the people who provide essential

health care to the people in this Province, the people at the Hoyles-Escasoni,

the angels in the world - I have an aunt over at Hoyles-Escasoni, ninety-one

years of age, and she thinks the workers are angels. We are saying to these

people, you have to take a zero increase, a zero increase next year, and the

CEOs of this country are going to make an 8.5 per cent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not counting bonuses.

MR. BARRETT: Not counting bonuses. That is just their hourly rate. Do you

know how much an increase the hourly rate is, 8.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker, as a

former teacher? Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars an hour, 8.5 per cent, they

are roughly going to get $150 an hour increase. One hundred and fifty dollars an

hour increase, and we are saying to these angels who are at the Hoyles-Escasoni,

who look after these senior citizens and do such a tremendous job - I know a lot

of them in my visits over there; they work like dogs - we are saying: Okay, our

corporate buddies, the Premier and his corporate buddies - because he used to be

a CEO at one time. He used to be a CEO. We do not know what he is now because he

has not done his Conflict of Interest statements and all this sort of stuff, but

that is a topic for another day - they are getting an 8.5 per cent increase and

we are going pay our civil servants, our public servants, zero per cent. I think

it is utterly ridiculous.

The other thing that we have heard in the media is that there was an

agreement on the Warren Report. They say one thing in the media and they say

another thing in the House. That is the sad part about it. They are on the media

saying one thing, and in this hon. House they say there was no agreement on the

Warren Report; but, the Minister of Finance is on there saying that they had a

letter, a sign-off, on the Warren Report.

It is really frustrating, Mr. Speaker, to know that those people on the other

side of the House have such a disregard for public employees in this Province.

Some of these employees, all of them, provide such a valuable service to all of

us in this Province, and we are here today passing

an act in this House to force

a contract on the public employees of this Province. I can't wait for the

members on the other side - and I am hearing it as I go around the Province and

in my district, that the general public out there cannot really understand what

is going on, that the members on the other side haven't been able to speak,

are either are not permitted to speak, cannot speak, or don't want to speak.

Some of these people went to the electorate six months ago and said: We would

never ever, ever, while we were government, legislate anybody back to work. That

is what they said in their campaign literature, that we would never ever, ever,

legislate our employees back to work, that we would take

part in meaningful

negotiations. Well, what we have seen is the Premier of this Province spend

about four or five hours, within the last month, at the negotiating table.

Agreements, Mr. Speaker, are negotiated when two sides sit down at a table

and present their positions; went two parties sit down. What we have seen here

is nothing but a charade, a complete charade, of the whole collective bargaining

process in this Province. What we have now is a piece of legislation forcing a

contract on the public employees.

I will tell you one thing, I am really glad that I am not the Minister of

Labour in this government, because there is no role - I don't know what role

the Minister of Labour played in all of this. There was nothing in the media in

terms of the role of the Minister of Labour. When I was Minister of Labour,

there were two or three work stoppages that I was involved in. There were a

couple that were no business of the government whatsoever, in terms of

provincial government. The airport strike here in St. John's was going on and

on and on, and we saw such a dramatic impact that was having on the whole

economy of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the economy of the

greater St. John's area. I traveled to Ottawa and I met with the Minister of

Labour federally and got their top mediator to come into the Province and sit

down -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: By leave, just to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. BARRETT: I personally got involved in the discussions and got both

parties together. I spent the whole weekend, one weekend. There was a give and

take on both sides, and in the end we ended up with an agreement.

In Gander I talked to both sides, and the union and the Airport Authority

decided to go to binding arbitration. There was such an impasse that they could

not reach any kind of agreement. They agreed to go to binding arbitration.

I am calling on the hon. members on the other side, let us revert to the

committee of this bill and put in the small percentage raise that you have

already agreed to, put in the Warren Report, put in your revised sick leave and

then you can go back to your districts with your heads held high saying that I

stood up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and not go back to your

districts in shame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today with regard to Bill 18,

An Act To Provide For The Resumption And

Continuation Of Public Services.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Basically, a bill that will

provide a closure to the current impasse that this government, NAPE and CUPE are

experiencing as they have come to grips with trying to reach a negotiated

settlement. I might add, Mr. Speaker, it is a position that I certainly did not

want to find myself in or this government in. I have to express disappointment

that the parties could not negotiate a settlement. It is disappointment that I

felt as I seen over the last couple of days any hope of a settlement, a

negotiated settlement, fall to the wayside.

Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here with regard to blame because I am convinced

that both parties in this impasse have tried to come to some sort of negotiated

settlement. In trying to reach that point they have begged to differ. It has

gone on now, not only for the twenty-some-odd or the twenty-seven days, I

believe, that the 20,000 workers were on strike, but even prior to that date.

As you know, there was, on March 31, a settlement offered which was very

hopeful would prevent the strike from even occurring. That did not happen, Mr.

Speaker, and in the days that followed I witnessed - mostly from the government

side, because obviously that is the side that I am more party to - I saw a

Premier, I saw the President of Treasury Board go to the wall with regard to

trying to find a way to negotiate a settlement. I must also add, I saw other

parties, in particular the union leaders, the negotiators on that side, do what

they had to do with regard to their membership in trying to bring about a

settlement. Again, I had to express my disappointment that some negotiated

settlement could not be brought about.

We brought this bill forward last week - I believe it was last Monday and

Tuesday - and a maritime session on Tuesday to get through the second reading

and stopped at that point to give time - a matter of probably five days - for

continued negotiation and, basically, that negotiation failed. I even heard the

Premier say today, that it is still not too late. So, we do live with some

degree of optimism, that perhaps even now in these dying moments, or I guess

hours as this bill is proceeding, that some resolve could be brought about.

I rise in support of this bill because I have come to the realization that

unless there is really a miracle in the next hour or so, that there is not going

to be a negotiated settlement. Because of that, I would have to say that I must

support this bill because I have to see an end to this particular

chapter in

negotiations come to a close. I also have to point out that when you have 20,000

workers who are out on the streets literally - and I have seen them over the

twenty-seven days that they were out there. When you look at 20,000 people out

on the streets, I have to compliment and congratulate them on the manner in

which they conducted themselves. I did pass through picket lines and I must say

that the people on the picket lines were accommodating, as they would in these

sorts of situations. The very fact that there were no incidents on so many

picket lines by so many people, is testament to these workers. We must remember

that they were where they were legally, that this is part of the process. They

are to be certainly commended and congratulated for what they did because it was

not easy on April 1 for them to leave their jobs, jobs which they value, jobs

which they conduct, that allows this Province to conduct the business of

government to provide services for the people of this Province and the value of

which, in any terms, is absolutely priceless.

After twenty-seven days, I might also add, they did return to work. What I

have witnessed over the last number of days in the workplace that I am a part

of, was workers who came back - and we understand that they would return with

some degree of bitterness, with some degree of anger, and with some degree, I

suppose, of trepidation as to what was there for them, but I must report, the

workers that I have seen in the department of which I am a part, came back and

picked up their work in the professional manner in which I knew they would and

are conducting themselves in the workforce as if they had never missed a day;

struggling, of course, to pick up on the work that was missed, and it is going

to take a while as things settle out.

Speaking in support of this bill as well, Mr. Speaker, we have to realize

that even though we do not have a negotiated settlement, that indeed there have

been some gains - some gains with regard to what was originally put on the

table. The President of Treasury Board has already referenced on a number of

occasions that - and when I look at this bill and the papers that are attached

to it - there has been a fair amount of movement with regard to resolving some

of the issues with the number of bargaining units of which NAPE and CUPE

consist. There is some relief with regard to salaries in years three and four.

Things like indexing is off the table. We have to admit, there certainly have

been some gains and there have been losses too, Mr. Speaker. As we know, in the

course of this type of action tempers do flare. Things are said and personal

things are often brought in, and that has not been where anyone would have liked

to see people go.

This bill will bring to a close, as I said, a chapter, in the hope that over

the years to come or in the days to come that some resolve can be brought about

with regard to all outstanding issues. It is unfortunate that at this particular

time of a new government, six months into their mandate, that we do have a

bottom line, and a bottom line that is dictated by circumstances that were far

beyond our control; beyond our control with regard to the history that has gone

before us. I am sure that maybe people are getting a little bit tired of hearing

it, but we do have a bottom line brought about by a deficit that is so

overpowering that drastic measures have to be taken. The resolve of this

government is to take those hard decisions, to build on those hard decisions,

for what we consider a very, very healthy future.

I am reminded of an editorial in The Telegram about a week or so ago,

and the headline was, "Bitter medicine for a healthy future." It is

unfortunate that we are in that sort of a predicament. I tell you, this medicine

that we are putting forth today certainly is bitter medicine but it is there for

a purpose, Mr. Speaker, a purpose that goes beyond even what we are doing today.

It is a purpose that I believe in, that this government believes in, and that is

the purpose of preparing for our children, for our grandchildren, a healthy

future, a future that they will be quite capable of building on. It is a legacy

that we are passing down; but, as my Premier has said time and time again, this

did not develop overnight. It will not be solved overnight. It is going to take

time.

What we are asking the Province, as we put forth this bitter medicine, is to

stay with us. Even though it is difficult, I am assured, and I can assure them,

that the future will be a healthy future if we are given the opportunity to

continue to move forward in building up the resources of this Province so that

we can give what our workers deserve, both in salary and in benefits. I live for

the day that I can stand up in this House of Assembly with a Budget that is

going forward with many new initiatives, especially on the revenue side, that I

can look at a negotiated settlement with our workers that will build on what has

gone on in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this is not easy. No one said it was going to be easy, but on

October 21 we took on this responsibility. Part of that responsibility has been

played out today. I am prepared to stand with this government in moving forward

with this bill, as bitter as it might be, and looking forward to the future, a

healthy future, for our sons and our daughters.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we have spoken about this Bill 18 a good many times by now, and it

seems like we are down now to the eleventh hour of speaking about it again. I,

for one, will not be voting in support of Bill 18. Last Tuesday night, I saw

members opposite, and not one of them stood and spoke in support of this bill,

but all of them stood - and I was keeping record here on my own - and I saw

sixteen times that members opposite stood and voted clause after clause on this

Bill 18. Now, all of a sudden today, at the eleventh hour, I guess they have

been instructed to show some support to their leader by standing, a few of them,

and saying why they agree with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not necessary. I have said it from day one, and

many others have said it as well. What we are seeing here today, I guess you can

probably look at it from two angles. You could look at it as the failure of the

new government to be able to negotiate successfully and come to a conclusion

that both parties have been able to live with, or you could take the other

approach, and that would be that we have a Premier who will not be flexible. It

is his way or no way.

I expect, when you look at the only matter that is currently on the table, I

think I would agree with the latter point I made: his way or no way. What you

saw here last Thursday night, or we heard in the media Friday - no, maybe it was

Thursday - when the poll came out that was done by NTV Telelink, and they gave

the results of how people in the Province viewed the whole strike, and how the

government had handled it, I think there was kind of a feeling of desperation,

particularly with our new Premier. He was sitting in Confederation Building on

Wednesday night, and I am sure that he had his two closest advisors with him,

the only ones he ever has, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board, and the Government House Leader. I would not expect there was anybody

else up on that eighth floor in the Premier's Office, only those two

individuals with the Premier, and they looked out over the city and they

probably said: Where did we go wrong? Do you know what? We are soon going to be

entering another polling period now and we have not gotten the people of the

Province on our side on this issue. What can we do to salvage this deal?

With that, the Premier said: Well, I know Leo pretty good. Leo has been a

friend of mine for a lifetime. I will just give him a ring now.

With that, he rang Leo at 10:45 in the night. It did not make any difference

that the man was out in Bay Bulls, home for the night, watching a movie. That

did not matter. The Premier had to get this deal settled so he could save face

and say that he was the winner. So he rang Leo and they chose a location that

would be half-and-half, half from the Confederation Building and half from Bay

Bulls. They picked a parking lot at a service station, almost something like out

of a movie you would have seen about fifty years ago on television. They had

their little meeting and he tried to get Leo to see it his way. The only problem

was, what he was offering Leo was something that he offered him six weeks ago,

trying to put a new spin on it. Leo would not go for that. Leo would not sell

out his membership to have a two-tiered system in health care.

Now, that did not fly very well with the Premier because he thought he could

save that deal and he would come out on top as the winner, and he would be able

to maintain the fact that he had dealt with every issue on the table and, by

golly, he had won on sick leave. He was determined that, if he only could get

that settled without having to fix it here in the House, he would be the hero in

his first semester - the Opposition Leader has been rating him on his first

semester's governance of this Province - but, by golly, Leo would not sell out

on his principles on the two-tiered health system.

There was a way out, and Leo had that way out. The next day, Mr. Puddister

rang up the Premier and said: No deal, but we have something here now that we

can both live with, if you will go along with it. What that is, is this: We are

down to one little piece of business. We have everything else solved. We have

been through the wringer on this one. We are down to one piece of business and

that is sick days. Now, I have the solution - Mr. Puddister bounced that off the

Premier. The solution was: let's take that sick leave and give it to

arbitration, and whatever they come out with I am satisfied to live with. How

about you, Mr. Premier, can you do the same?

We all knew that coming up with sick leave, letting a third party, someone

completely objective - and we all know that there is no short-term money

involved. There is no money involved in this short term. This is down the road,

years and years to come, but it will set a pattern. In my opinion, as being the

former Minister of Labour and President of Treasury Board, the union themselves

made the biggest compromise, I think that I have ever seen, willingly. The

biggest compromise. I was shocked when co-operatively, from the outset, the

union agreed to a two-year wage freeze. I think that took the cake. When the

union willingly agreed to a two-year wage freeze that was a huge compromise, a

very huge compromise and they never moved off that. They agreed to it and they

never tried to get it back.

I do not know if the Premier acknowledged that big concession made by the

union right off the top. I do not know if he gave them credit for that, but that

was a big one; especially after coming off ten years of wage freezes and

rollbacks. I suppose the only bit of generosity they have seen was in the past

three years. They got 15 per cent, and that would have been over fourteen years

if you mind to look at it in the proper perspective. In my opinion, the biggest

concession of all was made when they agreed to a wage freeze.

I have to go back to yesterday in church. I think it was a very valuable

lesson, and I am glad the Premier is here because I think he will enjoy this

little story. We were in church yesterday morning and it is customary in my

church that the minister gathers all the little children up to the altar and he

tells them a story before they go down to Sunday School. The story went like

this, and this is the illustration. I think you will enjoy it. He had a brown

paper bag. None of us in the congregation had any idea of what was in the brown

paper bag. He started to take these things out of the brown paper bag. The first

thing he said was this is going to be a story about the tater family - and

really it is potatoes. He said this is a story about the tater family. The first

potato or tater he took out was dressed with a wig on his head and a laugh on

his face, a kind of a smirk. I had missed the previous two Sundays so the little

ones knew the name of this guy. Okay, they said: Children, what is the name of

this tater? Right away, the children who had been there the previous two Sundays

were able to say. They said, Reverend, this is Aggie. So it was agitator. Okay,

that was the first one. The agitator who kicks up a racket, stirs up a mess and

a fuss. The next one they pulled out was a person with a big cap on - no, it was

a straw hat, with his sunglasses on and kind of a lackadaisical attitude, by the

look of the picture on the tater's face.

The minister said to the little ones who were sitting around, they were

looking up in his face, and he said: What is the name of this tater? The little

ones said: Well, his name is Spec. Spectator the second one was. The one who

sits back like Joe Chesterfield, examines politics from the chesterfield and is

able to make a comment on it but is an armchair politician, sort of. The next

one that he drew out was a tater, a big one. This guy had his black hat on, his

tuxedo and his quiff hat. So the minister said: Now, you don't know what the

name of this one is because this is a new one for this Sunday and we will have

another one next Sunday. They were all puzzled. They started to give answers but

they did not know. The minister said: Well, his name is Dick. Oh, dictator. With

that, it was an unusual thing, the church was so noisy. Anyway, the minister

said: You know, children, nobody likes a dictator. People do not like to be told

what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. They like people to co-operate. So,

it will be interesting to see what next Sunday's little member of the tater

family will bring, but there was a very good illustration by that whole

storyline for children, and adults appreciated it just as much.

Getting back to Bill 18. I believe if we had taken more of that storyline

into the negotiating table we would have had an agreement today. What I think

most people will tell you out there in the Province today is that our Premier -

although he may not admit it - wanted to win, and being in business with a

successful track record is all about winning. It is all about winning. If he was

to take the olive branch that Leo Puddister has passed him on Friday morning and

let the last remaining item go to the arbitrator - because we heard the Minister

of Finance and President of Treasury Board stand on his feet and say that he

would not, on behalf of the Province, hand over the government cheque book to a

third party, an arbitrator. Now, what was the argument going to be on Friday?

How is the Premier going to react to that? Because there was no cheque book

required for that last demand.

The Premier well knows that any concessions made on sick leave are not going

to be immediate. That is for down the road, and he well knows that the 4,000

people who are not going to be working here in the next year is another reason

why he does not have to worry about any cost here. If he minded to check with

John Peddle and George Tilley, they have been successful at the St. John's

Health Care Corporation where managers have been doing the job they are supposed

to do, and that is to supervise sick leave and make sure sick leave is

legitimate; because, you can have forty sick leave days available to you in a

year but if you are not going to be legitimate in using those properly, that is

the supervisor's job or the middle managers, so someone is not doing their

job. So, instead of putting responsibility where it should be, you want to take

it away from everybody. That is your idea, but I am not surprised because when

you are the owner-manager of a large corporation you are so accustomed to

looking at the financial synopsis and you are used to saying: Well, we do not

need this, we do not need that. Yes, cut that out. They are gone tomorrow

morning.

It is a little different when you have to be dealing with people, isn't it,

Mr. Premier? You are not used to dealing with people who are going to be

affected, and communities, and the repercussions. Every decision, as we all

know, that you make in government is about people and it is about money. It is

the same as when you operated your business and I was manager of a bank - people

and money - but there are the long-term repercussions, because every time that

you decide to close down a facility or a service in rural Newfoundland, someone

is going to suffer. Now, if you do not take that seriously, or if it does not

impact you when you go home at night and you feel good about your job here, and

you have done your day's work and that is it, if it is something that gets in

the way of you and people, then you are going to have to react differently. You

are not going to be able to take the hard line, the business approach, that you

would if you were with your previous business. I can tell you that if you decide

to close a clinic in Harbour Breton or Buchans, or anywhere around rural

Newfoundland, that is going to have a huge effect.

The same thing happened with school reform, when we had to close schools

around the Province. I remember when it happened in Badger. The people were so

upset, they actually wanted to chain me to the school bus. That was their

reaction to me as their MHA. They did not want the school bus to pull out of

Badger. They wanted to put me on it so they could show they were so deadly

opposed to that action, but we found a resolve because we passed the necessary

small schools act and that gave them protection, for the people in Badger, to

continue on with their school.

Every time you make a decision like that, it is not cut and dried like when

you are in business. You are only in the job six months, and I think you are

going to find that. If you have any heart, any compassion at all, when you sit

around the Cabinet table with your colleagues and you are going to give them

direction - I am not giving you a speech today, to chastise you. That is not my

role. It can be water off a duck's back. What I am saying is the commentary of

ordinary people around this Province, just like the school issue that happened

on the weekend.

Government, you cannot even substantiate your own argument for the

consolidation of school boards. You came out with an issue of, you are going to

save $6 million. Look, you could not write it on a matchbox, you could not put

it on my glasses' case, what research you did on it, and you came up without

any answers; but if you are going to ride roughshod over everyone in this

Province by just thinking you have the best idea, and you have not consulted

anyone, this is the kind of stuff we are going to be up against. The

twenty-eight days of torture that you spent is going to be pale in comparison to

what you can expect in the next three years, let me tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not necessary tonight. It is all about who is going

to come out on top here tonight. You know, there have been a lot of people on

strike for the past twenty-seven or twenty-eight days. They have gone back to

work. A lot of those people, they missed their month's salary. They cannot

make their mortgage payment that would be due the first of May. They are going

to have to go to the bank now and say: Can you extend my mortgage payment or can

you extend my line of credit? They are probably getting their groceries on their

Visa card, because who can afford to do without their month's salary? Not too

many in this Province.

You are going to do the same thing now to people out in rural Newfoundland

trying to sell a fish licence, a salmon licence, a non-resident trout licence or

a small game. You are going to ask some poor business person out in - where? -

want to come up with $1,000 now. You are in the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Oh, my goodness! I can't believe it! Can you give me a

minute or two?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a minute or so.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute or so has been granted. By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this would have been a beneficial talk to our Premier, because this

legislation that we are discussing here this afternoon is not necessary. If you

had been a bit flexible and shown the people of this Province that you didn't

have to win this one, we would have had a co-operative settlement that we could

all be proud of.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak in support of this bill. I have many reasons for

supporting this bill, and I would like to share a few of them today.

Government has tried to negotiate an end to this strike for nearly a month,

and I am disappointed today that efforts over the weekend didn't result in a

deal, but they didn't and it is time now to restore stability to the Province.

We are not doing what the Government in British Columbia is doing, we are not

rolling back wages of 15 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to take his time to

sit quietly. I have sat here for about three weeks and he has been yapping his

jaws for the last three weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a tradition in this House that when members are giving what amounts

to a major introductory speech, that we hear the member in silence. I would ask

all members to co-operate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I would not have liked to have done a maiden speech on this

item, but I am today doing a maiden speech.

We are not doing what the former Liberal Administration did under Clyde

Wells. The members opposite used this Legislature to roll back previously

negotiated wage increases. We made a fair offer to our employees that was in our

ability to pay. I believe that the employees would have accepted government's

offer on March 31 had they been given the opportunity to vote on it. The

legislation before this House provides for a 5 per cent raise over four years

and current employees are not losing a thing. There is no contract striping.

I support this bill because I believe, at this point, it is time to restore

stability to the Province and focus on the task of getting the Province's

fiscal house in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, can I make a point of order here? I still hear

the member from that district gabbing. Would you kindly ask him to refrain?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the member is giving her first introductory speech. We have a long

tradition that we hear the member in silence, and I would ask all members for

their co-operation. It has been a long-standing tradition in Parliament,

recognized throughout the entire British Commonwealth system, that when members

are giving their first speech, they are heard in absolute silence. I ask members

for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I should abdicate my elected

duty to an arbitrator. We have been elected to government, and that is what we

are doing. I have received many e-mails and phone calls pertaining to the strike

and government's actions. Many of these calls described hardships experienced

by our citizens over the past month because of the disruption and backlog in the

health care system.

I am particularly concerned over the many vulnerable residents in my own

district, particularly the Bell Islanders, who have had to face a severe reduced

ferry service as a result of this strike. The forced cancellation and

postponement of much-needed medical services has resulted in extreme emotional

and mental stress on our citizens. Although I was anticipating some financial

challenges when I offered myself for public service in the provincial election

last October, I was not prepared for the extent and the magnitude of the

financial mess left by the immoral spending and the abdication of

responsibilities of the previous government.

Since our election, we have had to make many difficult decisions. They have

been difficult for our people, they have been difficult for our government, and

they have been difficult for me, but they are necessary. We cannot and we will

not abdicate our responsibility. We will not jeopardize the future of this

Province. The Premier and the Finance Minister tried to negotiate a fair and a

just settlement, but it has been to no avail.

Employees have gone back to work, and we are glad to have them back, but at

this point we still do not have a collective agreement. It is time to put an end

to this. The people of the Province have endured a month of uncertainty and

reduced services. We cannot have the threat of further labour disruptions by our

public service hanging over the Province. A legislated agreement is not what our

employees want and it is not what we wanted, but we have to protect the people

of our Province and that is why we have to make a very difficult but necessary

decision.

My vision, alon