March 25, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to report to hon. members that government's $130 million

hospital redevelopment program for St. John's is on

schedule and on budget.

There are currently 200 people employed on the five sites which make up

the redevelopment program. They are the Janeway Child Health Centre, the Health Sciences

Centre, St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, the Waterford Hospital, and the Memorial University

Utilities Annex.

Today I would like to provide my hon. colleagues with an update on all

five projects which comprise the hospital redevelopment program, beginning with the

Janeway Child Health Centre.

Since September 1998, when the first contract for site and foundations

was awarded to Pyramid Construction, a total of eleven contracts have been awarded for the

new Janeway children's hospital.

The only significant contract remaining to be awarded is for site

completion and landscaping. Work has progressed throughout the past mild winter and the

Janeway is scheduled for completion in June 2000. The project budget, including HST, is

$71.5 million.

Seven contracts, representing approximately 95 per cent of the work,

have been awarded for renovations and building upgrading at the Health Sciences Centre.

Total budget for this project is $20 million and it is scheduled for completion in the

summer of 2000. It is expected that two or three small contracts will be awarded later

this year for the balance of the work.

The renovation and building systems upgrading work at St. Clare's Mercy

Hospital is the most challenging part of the total project. The total budget for work on

St. Clare's is $23 million. To date, six major and several small contracts have been

awarded, representing approximately 70 per cent of the project. Five contract packages,

including a parking facility, remain to be tendered over the next several months. Work at

St. Clare's is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2000 as well.

Memorial University has awarded one contract for expansion and

upgrading of the Utilities Annex to meet the future needs of the new Janeway Hospital and

the expanded Health Sciences Complex. A second contract has been awarded for replacement

of the existing emergency generators, which were subsequently determined to be unreliable

for their intended purposes. Total project budget is $6.9 million and contract

administration is being handled by Memorial University, with a scheduled completion date

in January 2000.

Finally, I am pleased to report to hon. members that a $2 million

renovation project to construct a new outpatient dialysis unit at the Waterford Hospital

has been completed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it very unusual that the minister would stand in his place, and

as the former Minister of Health would know that this project is far from on

schedule and

far from on budget. Back when the announcement was made I attended the announcement at

Memorial University. It was scheduled for the fall of 1998, the spring of 1999, then the

fall of 1999, and now it is 2000. It is certainly not on target.

As for on budget, initially at the first AGM of the new Health Care

Corporation in St. John's at the Holiday Inn we were told it would cost $100 million, of

which we would borrow and we would finance that over twenty years. There would be savings

of $100 million to go into the system to improve front-line services, and put it back into

health care. Minister, that has not happened.

The latest admission by the Health Care Corporation and by this

government is that it is now $130 million, by your admission. You are not including the

five-year plan for the Health Care Corporation that is including over the next two years.

They need $20 million worth of equipment to go into that new facility, plus furniture and

other related things to put into that. That is up to $150 million. The Auditor General

herself has said that there are no identified savings by reorganizing in the City of St.

John's.

They have not even listed - and I have asked in this House and the

Minister has not provided. Where are the identified savings we are going to get by

reorganizing? I supported from day one the concept of reorganizing; if it is going to put

money back into the system, spend less money on facilities, less on bricks and mortar, and

more on the front-line workers, I will support it. That has not happened, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Far from it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[There was a disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind visitors to the gallery that they are not permitted to

take

part in the debate, in any way, shape or form, that is going on here on the floor of

the House of Assembly. Showing approval or disapproval by applauding or by any other

disruptions of any nature is not permitted. It has been a long-standing traditional

parliamentary rule. I have to warn you at this time that if such outbreaks occur again, I

will have no choice but to order the galleries cleared.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave to hear the real truth? (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

I commend the government for spending money on the buildings but there

are other things in health care as well that need (inaudible) and are seriously lacking in

this Province.

In particular, in the area of the Province that I represent, Labrador

West, we have a lineup, a backlog of patients waiting to see physiotherapists, and they

cannot get in. They are waiting months on end. We have people who are sent out to

hospitals in St. John's for almost every need they have, only to find that when they are

released from hospital, and they are a stretcher case, then they have to pay their own way

back; or, if the airlines will not take them, which is the case most times, they have to

wait until somebody else in Labrador West has an unfortunate incident and the air

ambulance has to go in for them. They will take them back one at a time. There are lots of

other needs in this Province for health care.

When we look at the people who are providing health care, I noticed in

the Budget all of the money that was allocated for recruiting new doctors. I think that

the health care system...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: While doctors are important, there are certainly other

people, such as the nurses and others, who provide health care as well.

Thank you.

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

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide members with a status

report on government's White Paper entitled: Challenging Responses to Changing Times:

New Proposals for Occupation Regulation.

Government has been very active with respect to this White Paper. The

Department of Government Services and Lands, in conjunction with the Departments of Health

and Community Services; Justice; Human Resources and Employment; and Forest Resources and

Agrifoods, reviewed this report and the immense response to it. Recommendations were

subsequently brought forward to Cabinet and accepted.

Proposed legislation will standardize procedures for the regulation of

occupations and improve consumer protection. The intent is to present an omnibus bill

which will amend twenty-seven pieces of legislation. This legislation is now being drafted

and will be introduced within three years. During this process, extensive consultation

will take place with affected groups.

Key changes being proposed include a process to determine which new

occupations should be regulated, a standard disciplinary process for all regulated

occupations, and lay representation on self-regulatory boards.

As well, an inter-governmental committee with representatives from the

Departments of Government Services and Lands; Health and Community Services; and Justice,

has been established to determine which new occupations should and will be regulated.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to working with all groups involved and

the introduction of this new legislation.

Thank you.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of his statement before

the House opened. I would just like to say, while our party certainly agrees with the

principle of proposed legislation that will standardize procedures for the regulation of

occupations and improve consumer protection, we are very concerned that it is going to

take three years to have it brought to the House. It is being drafted at the present time,

and it is going to be three years.

While we agree with the principle, we are very concerned that we are

looking at changing and amending twenty-seven pieces of legislation. In being able to

stand here today and fully support the efforts, we cannot until we see what the

legislation is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, we are also concerned that as part of this plan there is

going to be extensive consultation take place with affected groups. We, on this side of

the House, hope that the extensive consultation does not mean lip service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very nice to have advance notice of legislation, but three years'

notice seems to be a little long. The recommendations apparently have already been

accepted. Somebody has started drafting it. I know lawyers can be slow, but surely three

years is an awfully long period of time.

Can we not have this legislation, even in draft form, before the House

and sent to a legislative committee to review this matter so the matter can be dealt with

more efficiently?

Oral Questions

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

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

After a week-long blackout, the Premier took off the gloves yesterday

and called a press conference with respect to the nurses' strike. The health care system,

I would like to remind him, belongs to all of us - Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You

are their government, and you owe the people an explanation in this House.

What issues stood in the way of a resolution, and how did you seek to

address those issues to prevent something that I believe none of us wanted - namely, a

nurses' strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me be begin by saying that I

certainly did not take off the gloves yesterday, and I am not taking off the gloves today.

I am spending my time doing everything I can to ensure we come to a negotiated settlement

of the outstanding issues.

I think it is important that the House remind itself today that

government has concluded negotiations successfully with over thirty bargaining units,

representing over 30,000 women and men across a wide variety of sectors that work for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and report through government as their employer.

Mr. Speaker, the record of government has been quite outstanding, if I

may say, in the area of collective bargaining, with every contract to this point in time -

every one - being negotiated successfully at the bargaining table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, members opposite are making comments

and I would ask, if questions are asked, that perhaps they would wait for the answer

before they comment.

We have been at the table in a very intense way in recent days with the

nurses' union. Unfortunately, and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, nobody in

this Province wants to see a strike in the health care sector. Government does not, and I

do not believe the nurses' union do as well. In particular, I do not believe that nurses

do; but that is what happened yesterday.

I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition, much as I said

yesterday, that on the major issues which have been identified, in particular the question

of permanents, we put a substantial new position on the table on the issue of casuals - we

put a substantial new position on the table - and on the issue of compensation we put a

new position on the table.

I believe that momentum was building rapidly, in the wee hours of

yesterday morning, for those of us who were there. There were representatives from

government there, long-standing negotiators, conciliators, representatives for the

hospital associations across the Province - notably Mr. John Peddle's people, negotiators.

We believed that we were close to an agreement. That agreement did not materialize. What

we had instead was a strike which began.

As we speak, both the negotiators for the employer, for government and

for the hospital association, and negotiators for the nurses' union are again gathered.

For the moment, I think that dialogue is occurring through conciliation. I can say no more

than both sides expect - and I had a briefing minutes before coming in here - that a

little later on this afternoon we may well see a recommencement of negotiations. That will

be known if and when it happens.

Speaking for myself, and speaking for the President of the Treasury

Board and the Minister of Health, we will remain available this afternoon, this evening,

through the night if necessary, to try and come to a negotiated settlement of this strike.

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of all those who are in

the gallery, notably and specifically nurses. Let me say that notwithstanding the

circumstance we find ourselves in, government does want to acknowledge - and I conclude

with this, Mr. Speaker - the professional way in which nurses have conducted themselves

and allowed the health care system, in these circumstances, to nevertheless provide care

to those who need it most in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, you said yesterday that you were surprised

to learn, that you heard on the radio, that nurses had gone on strike; that an offer was

made from government and that they had not contacted you back.

Isn't it a fact that statement is absolutely false? Isn't it a fact

that the representatives from the union, on behalf of the bargaining team, contacted

government's conciliator and informed them that your offer was not in the best interest of

nurses in this Province? If that is a fact, why did you make that statement yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition

is saying is not correct. At the time that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, you are asking for the facts; I will be glad

to give the facts. If we are all here to try and serve a process that will lead to a

negotiated settlement, we can adopt one attitude. If we are here to serve other purposes,

we can adopt a different kind of attitude.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants

information that I can give without violating the confidentiality of the negotiating

table, I will give it; but I ask that when questions are asked - this matter is too

serious for the normal rule of partisanship which too often captures this place to apply.

At the time that the strike was called, we were given no notice the

strike was called, beyond the fact that we heard an announcement on CBC Radio.

I have heard today the president of the nurses' union indicate that the

nurses' union had notified the conciliator, because of time constraints, could not notify

the negotiating team on this side. I have to take that as being correct, if that is what

the president of the nurses' union says, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition - I

would ask him to accept - that the first notice we had on this side - and I note that Mr.

John Peddle, who is not, by the way, with us but somewhere separately, in touch with his

team or his team members - has said exactly the same thing; that he had heard on radio a

report, assumed it was a false report because he too was awaiting a response to what we

thought would look to be a settlement in the making.

Those are the facts and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to

accept that factual response.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, isn't it true that in the late night, early

morning of negotiations, government put a complex proposal forward that gave little time

to the bargaining team; because, had they gone beyond the eight o'clock time frame, the

bargaining team would have had to wait another thirty days to give another seven days

notice to be in a legal strike position?

The question, Premier, is this: Had that proposal been made the day

before, so there would have been enough time before the strike clock was ticking, that

there might have been a tentative agreement for the membership to vote upon?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is your plan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland is sitting

beside the Leader of the Opposition saying, "That is their plan." and showing, I

think, a high degree of irresponsibility in making that comment, especially since the

Leader of the Opposition is asking a question which deserves a response.

For the Opposition House Leader to believe that anybody would plan for

an action that would lead to a strike, I think, shows a terrible lack of understanding of

the potential consequences for citizens of our Province who rely upon the integrity of our

health care system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question, Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: I am answering the question.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comment by the Leader of the

Opposition, a specific comment, as a matter of fact the matter - and I cannot say more

than that - which we thought was going to lead to a solution was a proposal put by the

nurses' union.

What government did during the course of the night - well, you have to

know. I have to say to you, I was there. I was up all night; I was part of that effort.

What the government did was cost the proposal which the nurses' union put, put some dollar

signs behind it, broke it down, had Treasury Board officials come in and work through the

night, and had the Treasury Board officials go and be available to brief the nurses' union

so they could see in detail and come to an understanding of the impact of those measures.

That, in fact, is what we were dealing with. That is the matter that we were working

towards.

I think there was goodwill and a good effort by all parties on both

sides to try and find a solution. I hope there remains goodwill today by all parties on

both sides to try and find a solution.

I have to believe that all members of this House on both sides want and

hope that the solution for the health care system -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I would ask the member not to heckle, but to listen.

It is too important. I would hope that members on both sides want -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: A specific question deserves a specific answer.

Question Period is not a time for government to grandstand, to be speech making. After

Question Period, I say to the Premier, you can do that.

Standing Orders dictate that when a specific question is put to a

specific member or minister in this Legislature, it is meant to be answered specifically,

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, questions can be directed to members of the

government and the government decides who will answer, but there are occasions when

ministers can refuse to answer questions without even giving reasons. Questions do not

have to be answered by any particular minister or any government member.

The hon. the Premier.

I ask if he would conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will do that.

There was a proposal which we think - and we still think - can form the

basic of bringing this negotiation to a successful resolution put by the nurses' union.

Obviously, if you put a proposal on the table, consider a proposal and

look at it as the basis of a solution, both sides have to have an appreciation of the

value in an negotiation - the cost of that measure.

Part of what was done into the wee hours of the morning - that is true

- was to have the matter in question costed, to have Treasury Board officials work both

with government negotiators and be available to answer questions and determine the cost of

a program with the nurses' union negotiators. That took place.

It is not unusual, never in a negotiation, that the last hours of a

negotiation conclude the agreement. In fact, not only is it not unusual, it is normal for

that to happen. That is not unusual at all.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just to the Premier: Sir, if you want an agreement,

which everybody wants, I would suggest that you stop taking out propaganda ads in The

Telegram .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would suggest that you not infuriate the

negotiations, and let government negotiators and conciliators do their job without talking

about how disappointed you are in the professional staff of this Province.

You indicated clearly yesterday - it is an important statement. Listen

very carefully to what the Premier had to say yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are grandstanding (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for the point of view of the people in the

gallery, every time the Opposition asks a question when there are people in the gallery,

government's response is grandstanding. It has happened over the last three years and I

will suspect it will continue to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is - listen very carefully to what the

Premier said yesterday. He indicated that what the Province puts on the table one day may

not be there the next. So the offer that was made, which you believed - to use your words

- will form the basis of a tentative agreement, that may not be there tomorrow.

Is that helpful for collective bargaining? Is that the type of approach

that is going to see an end to this strike that, again, nobody in this Legislature wants?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of collective

bargaining indeed.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I think all parties, be

it the employer or employee side of the table, will welcome any comments which are

designed to create an environment to bring about a resolution of this dispute. I think

that anybody would welcome that.

I think that both sides will be able to see clearly - and I say this to

the Leader of the Opposition quite seriously - when what is happening here is somebody

trading on a difficult circumstance to try and score political points, which is what the

Leader of the Opposition is beginning to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to negotiate here in the

House, because the Leader of the Opposition is not empowered to negotiate on behalf of the

nurses' union.

The job of government is to represent the best interests of all of the

public of Newfoundland and Labrador and to manage the dollars of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, given all of the competing demands for those dollars.

We have to be fair to nurses, fair to the needs of the health care

system, and fair to the 30,000 other public servants who have already settled. This is a

difficult and complex task. It requires balance, judgement, and a commitment to fairness.

It will not get done by exchanging or engaging in partisan commentary, one side of the

House or the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am amused at the Premier's chastisement of my

questions today. This is the House of Assembly. This is where issues are supposed to be

debated.

Yesterday, in a carefully controlled news conference, neither the

Premier nor the Minister of Health had the - I guess, should have been here to talk about

what was taking place but chose to do it carefully, in a carefully crafted message, not to

answer the questions in the House.

All we are asking Premier - this is the House of Assembly - are issues

of public importance. Certainly you would agree that this is an important public matter

that must be, should be, and has to be debated in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: There are three outstanding issues, issues that

affect people who rely on the health care system; the need to increase pay scales so we

can retain and recruit nurses who will otherwise be going to other provinces.

Could you inform us on what you put on the table with respect to

retention and recruitment that you thought formed the basis of a tentative agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want the House - and I hope the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the questions in the House are examined later - to

pay close attention to what is happening. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that

we have to respect the collective bargaining process and negotiate there at the collective

bargaining table.

What I did yesterday was give an update on the state of negotiations,

give an update on the issues which we believe were addressed, but I respected the

confidentiality of the collective bargaining table.

You now have the Leader of the Opposition asking me in the House to

specifically lay out what offer the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has on the

table.

I want the Leader of the Opposition to take a moment, to pause and

reflect, and tell me whether he seriously wants me to stand and begin to do that.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is always necessary, I say to the Premier, to

pause and reflect sometimes. As I do, I understand this: that the issues of recruitment

and retention, the issues of burnout in all of our health care professionals - nurses,

physicians, lab and x-ray and others - the issues of health care itself and the

maintenance of a system for all people in the Province. Had you taken the time to pause

and reflect and listen to the last three years of issues that were brought to your

attention, we would not be in this position today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If you want to pause and reflect, let's pause and

reflect back upon the three weeks during the election and what you promised and what you

are now fulfilling.

All we are asking, Premier, is for some more detailed information that

can put some hope, restore some confidence into the health care system. When will you

provide it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously that the Leader of the

Opposition - and I think, to give him credit - wisely has reflected and understands what

he asked a moment ago of government: (

a) he should not have asked it; and (

b) in any case

government should not answer it.

There is a negotiation now occurring between negotiators from both

sides in which these very issues are being discussed. It is not for the government to come

into the House, in a partisan exchange, and start exchanging with the Leader of the

Opposition offers that may or may not have been put to nurses, or discussing the responses

of nurses made in confidence at the negotiating table. I am not going to do it because

that will not get us closer to getting a settlement.

What I can say, and will repeat, is that government has successfully,

at the negotiating table, concluded agreements with thirty bargaining units, covering over

30,000 public servants. That is a significant record of success at the bargaining table

and we want to successfully conclude, as well, an agreement with nurses. We are back at

the table this afternoon, we are bargaining in good faith, we are addressing all of the

issues, and we will do everything that we possibly can to get an agreement that is fair to

everybody involved and everybody affected by this strike.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Premier. The Budget announced this week

made no mention of hiring extra nurses despite you, Premier, stating in the last week of

the election campaign that you are convinced there is a dire need to hire more nurses

across the Province.

In fact, Premier, you stated, and I will quote it: I have been

convinced that the staffing issue needs to be addressed and it is one that I intend to

intervene on personally. You cannot have stressed out people working double shift, being

called back on short notice, burnt out, running and operating within the system.

I ask you, Premier, why didn't your government in this Budget for

1999-2000 provide those nurses you are convinced are so urgently needed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, again the Opposition is either

demonstrating it does not understand the collective bargaining process, or is trying to

participate in it in a way that will lead to breakdown.

The issue of how many casuals would be converted is being negotiated at

the collective bargaining table; the issue of how many brand new nurses would be hired

into the system is being negotiated at the collective bargaining table. Indeed, these

issues, and the issue of compensation, are at the heart of the dialogue that is now

ongoing, and are at the heart of any agreement we are able to reach.

What the Member for Ferryland is now saying is that we should have

unilaterally announced on Budget Day - not after consultation with the nurses, not after

negotiation -, we should have unilaterally said: Here is the number of casuals, here is

the number of permanents, take it or leave it. We have not done that, we have been

negotiating those numbers at the collective bargaining table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see why negotiations are not going anywhere. You are not a very

good listener, I say to the Premier. I never made reference to casuals at all, I say to

the Premier.

The government thinks it is doing nurses a favour by hiring more

nurses. That is shameful, Premier, that is very shameful. It is the sick people of this

Province and it is the families who are looking after those sick people in the Province

that want more nurses. It is not a collective bargaining issue, I would say, to put more

nurses in the system that you said are urgently needed! It is wrong, Premier!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier, it is wrong for you to hold the

number of nurses as a bargaining tool. To renege on your commitment that you made, and you

made many in the election campaign, and you felt it was so important and ignored them on

Budget Day, I ask you now: Why don't you live up to your commitment that you made when you

were so convinced that those nurses are needed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland is now telling

not government but telling nurses, who made this one of their most important issues, and

who have repeatedly in the last few days, and who every day they met me during the

election campaign, said this is not just about money, this is also about patient care.

That means that it is also about the number of permanents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: No, I am telling the truth. You fellows are

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not telling the truth, I

can tell you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member cannot say that.

I ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. SULLIVAN: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Get to your point of order quickly, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier indicated something that I did not say

and I never made reference to it. Casualization and permanence is an issue at the

negotiating table. I haven't addressed the casualization in my question, and therefore he

has used an issue that I never referred to in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let us talk then about the matter of

permanence. The matter of permanence is a matter raised at the bargaining table and put

there by the nurses' union, as it quite rightly should be put there by the nurses' union.

It is a matter that nurses all across this Province have raised. Nurses have been very

careful to say this is not just about salary, it is also about workload stress. They have

raised the matter.

For the member who is the health critic to stand up and say that it is

inappropriate for government to raise this at the table, or to address it, or to respond

to it at the table, shows a poor understanding of the collective bargaining process.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is stating that only negotiations can add more nurses to

the nursing rolls of this Province? You have a responsibility as Premier, and your

Minister of Health has a responsibility, to see that there are sufficient workers in our

system today to give people the care they require and need. You do not need negotiations

to do that, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The former premier didn't need them to hire social

workers to do investigations. You didn't need collective agreements for that. You have a

responsibility to hire more nurses. You promised them in the election campaign and you did

not do it. The Budget is the place to announce that, not around the collective bargaining

table. If you want to deal with casualization -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier this question. Do you believe it is

essential to hire nurses in order to maintain the integrity of our health care system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this performance by the member, which

in my mind has nothing to do with trying to help to find a solution to the current strike,

has everything to do with trying to score some political points. I have enough faith, full

faith, in the intelligence of nurses. They can see this for what it is. They understand

what it is.

With respect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question about the

numbers of nurses that can be converted from casuals to permanents, or hired as permanent,

the fact is that over the last six or seven months in fact about 160 nurses have been

converted from casual back to permanent in this Province, and it has been done outside of

the collective bargaining process. The fact is there are matters being discussed at the

table affecting both conversions of casuals and the creation of new permanent positions.

Those matters I believe can form the basis of a collective agreement.

They have been raised by nurses, we are responding to those issues, and

I think that is as it should be.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier does not understand my question. Casualization or permanent

is not my question. He can iron that out at the negotiating table. My question to you is

this. Do you feel it is necessary to hire more nurses, whatever they are, in order to

maintain our health care system? You refused to answer.

Premier, you said during the election campaign, just five days before

the election campaign, to the people of this Province you now have the money. You came

back from Ottawa, almost cheque in hand, to improve the Province's health care system.

That is what you said. I asked you a simple question. If you believe it is important to

hire more nurses - and not try to twist it into a negotiating issue -, if it is important

to hire more nurses, Premier, why didn't you do it in the Budget there? Why are you trying

to make it an issue in collective bargaining that it isn't?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do believe it is important to hire

new nurses, to have new permanent positions. I also believe it is important to convert

additional positions from casual back to permanent. I personally became convinced of the

importance of doing that having gone through many conversations with nurses during the

election campaign who convinced me there is a real, substantial workload issue that

government has got to begin to address.

When the member opposite says why didn't you just announce that in a

budget, when both of these matters are matters that are before us at the bargaining table,

put there by the nurses' union, I do not think government should stand up and unilaterally

say: Here is the number of casuals and here is the number of permanents. I think we have

an obligation to negotiate. We are negotiating in good faith. I say to the member opposite

we are not going to unilaterally come to that determination without consulting properly at

the negotiating table.

I believe there is still a good prospect for a negotiated settlement,

but, Mr. Speaker, it will not be arrived at with this kind of hysteria being shown by the

Member for Ferryland in the House of Assembly today.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am really appalled by the Premier's statements in the election

campaign and the total disregard - trying to make an issue.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. Premier, it deals with

casual nurses, and it is my first time to ask this question dealing with casuals. You are

trying to divert it and give people an impression of something that is not. Your smooth

public relations are not going to work, I tell you, on the people of the Province. It is

not going to work!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister this. The Minister of Health, was

a nurse herself, who practised I think on the front lines. I know at least twelve or

fifteen years ago she practised on the front lines, and should know some of the problems

here, that the hospital's budget for casual nurses, usually on a two-week pay period,

often runs out during the first week. Then they have to call nurses back, permanent nurses

on overtime, and paying extra money. It does not take much to realize that this is neither

cost-efficient, I say to the minister, nor is it in the best interest of patient care.

I ask you this. Why, in the best interest of patient care, didn't you,

as the former head of the nurses' union, as the Minister of Health today, impress on the

Premier and other people that there should have been more nurses hired and announced in

this Budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think I need to impress those issues on the Premier because I

think the nurses of the Province have done a very fine job doing that when the Premier and

I, and a number of other people, went around the Province during the election. As well,

those people that will have a memory to recall will remember that in our first Health

Forum casualization was one of the key issues that was raised around the table. We have

been putting measures in place long before this process came into play. We identified

clearly that there are too many casuals in the system. That is clearly why we have put

forward an enhanced offer to address casualization and how we can correct that.

Mr. Speaker, I have to also say that at this point in time I have to

agree with the Premier. It is very critical that we respect the process. If you look at

the three main areas -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the opportunity to

finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to note that the three main issues that have

been put forward - because nurses have put that information forward to their leadership -

are based on these three items: conversion of casuals to permanents, the creation of new

nursing positions and compensation, Mr. Speaker. For me, personally, I respect the

process. I ask the members opposite to do the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of nurses at Branch

No. 1, the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital. They are calling upon us to voice their

concerns. I will give the gist of it here.

The lack of respect that government is showing in contemplating taking

an approach to collective bargaining within the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union,

we find it reprehensible to think that our elected officials would consider legislating a

7 per cent settlement. Such actions would be an abuse of the democratic process; make a

mockery of collective bargaining, a process that is already questionable; be an insult to

nurses who have carefully followed the existing law through our negotiations and strike

vote; effectively takes away their right to strike without providing an alternative

dispute settling mechanism; and be against the law, or at least against the spirit and

intent of the law. Please, respect the law if you wish nurses to. If the law means nothing

to government, how can it mean anything to nurses?

Mr. Speaker, this is a result of the fundamental understanding -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, hundreds of names, I say to the Minister of

Mines and Energy.

It is part of a fundamental problem that is in our Province today, a

failure to recognize the importance of nurses as health care professionals and treating

them with the respect they deserve. It has not happened, I can tell you. We cannot get on

that trip. He talks about what other bargaining units have received and how people

settled. Look, the gun is to the people's heads when they settle. You asked how many of

them are happy with a settlement out there, as if they came running to him and said: Give

us 7 per cent. There are items discussed at a bargaining table. Salary is one such item

that is ironed out at the bargaining table. Casualization versus permanent are union

issues that need to be discussed.

I say to the Premier and to government, it is your responsibility to

determine how many nurses in this Province are needed to provide safe health care, to care

for people in our system. If you think that has to be done at the bargaining table - we

can only hire nurses then. Only hire nurses when we have collective bargaining? Is that

what the Premier is telling us? I can tell you that when laying off teachers you did not

consult; 182 less. When there is hiring done in government, who do you consult?

It is a fundamental issue. Nurses are needed. The Premier was quick to

admit in an election campaign he now has the money to improve the Province's health care

system. He said, the Minister of Health is a nurse, the deputy minister is a nurse, and

every night he goes home to a nurse. He tells the nurses they can trust him to handle

their concerns over cutbacks to health care. That is what the Premier said. He is

convinced we need more nurses.

In the document that outlines this Province's spending for next year,

the Minister of Finance stands and does not make one mention of hiring something that the

Premier thinks is so important.

He tries to use this on the bargaining table, to say: Look, we gave you

so many nurses. You did not give them nurses. You gave the sick people of the Province

more nurses. Every single person -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have more calls on my desk from sick people than I

can even get to in a week, almost. People cannot get the service they need. You have to

bring a family to hospital today, and not because of the quality of service that nurses

and other health professionals are providing, but because there are not enough of them to

provide that particular service.

Then we hear statements in the House about how we are on budget and on

target, two years behind, and millions of millions of dollars we are going to reinvest

back into health care. It is getting siphoned off into mortar and bricks, hiring people,

and shutting down hospital beds, hiring people like bed utilization co-ordinators.

The names of people being hired today - you would not need a bed

utilization co-ordinator. You would not need a cardiac co-ordinator. You would not need

anybody like that if you had enough people on the front lines and the investment was in

the front lines and not into a bureaucracy and an Administration that is running rampant

in this Province, that is gobbling up dollars inefficiently.

The Auditor General refers to it. Maclean's magazine tells us

that 40 per cent of the dollars spent in health care today are inefficiently used. That is

$30 billion in this country. It is hundreds of millions in this Province, and there is

nothing done to fix the problem, the underlying cause.

That is why nurses are out on strike. They only have the attention of

this government when there is an election. The reason we had a health care forum was in

the middle of a federal election. When the news was bad in this Province they changed the

minister and called a forum to ease down the public.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today to this petition, to

support this petition, and have an opportunity to address -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have the petition?

MR. HARRIS: No, I am looking for it. Can I have the petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I heard the remarks at the beginning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are concerned about the

lack of respect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These petitioners raise a number of very important points about the

process that is going on between government and the nurses' union this very day and in the

past number of weeks. What they are concerned about is the lack of respect that government

is contemplating taking in its approach to bargaining with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Nurses' Union.

I stood many times during Question Period today to ask the Premier to

acknowledge that he has made a serious blunder in the last twenty-four hours by trying to

undermine the bargaining team for the nurses' union by suggesting that they are not

conducting the bargaining properly. In fact he, himself, has undermined the possibility of

a resolution by hardening the position of the nurses, by preventing the very proposal that

he tabled from being seriously considered because he has already said that it is a strike

issue for the bargaining team and not even an opportunity, fairly, to discuss it.

The comments of the Minister of Health this morning, on the radio,

indicating more or less that all bets are off; once you go on strike there is a whole

different ball game. We may not have the same position when we go back to the bargaining

table this morning as we had yesterday.

What is that if it is not an attempt to provoke and prolong a strike

and prepare, perhaps, to bully them back with legislation that they will especially design

to impose a contract or compose an agreement instead of using the emergency powers under

the public sector collective bargaining act?

Mr. Speaker, what is going on here - and we have been accused on this

side of grandstanding - appears to be an attempt not to negotiate but in fact to provoke

and prolong a strike to give them an excuse to order them back to work.

What they are doing by sending out these signals, by indicating that

they are going to legislate a 7 per cent wage increase, what are they doing but

effectively removing the right to strike and not bargaining in good faith; because they

ought not to take a position that there is no other offer to settle a strike on wages

other than the 7 per cent that was accepted a year ago by other bargaining units.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Premier here today saying he has reached an

agreement with everybody else. Well, ask the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association

about the agreement that they got with this government, when the government used its

powers - abused its powers, I say - to impose and change an arbitration award that is

binding on the RNC but not binding on this government.

This government in both actions, both the action of the RNC and their

treatment of the nurses in these negotiations, have demonstrated that they are not

prepared to bargain in good faith.

Nobody likes a bully, and I think what is happening here is that this

government is using its powers and threatening, as the Minister of Health did this

morning, that we are back to square one. We could have a different position tomorrow. This

might not be here now.

How can the nurses, the thousands of nurses out here across the

Province, have an opportunity to communicate with their leadership and even consider a

proposal if it might not be there in ten minutes or the next time they get together,

according to the Minister of Health? What kind of tactic is this government using in

dealing with the people who are providing health care in our Province? I think the

government has to take a different approach.

Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, the President of Treasury Board

refused to answer any questions, refused to talk about the process. The Premier and the

Minister of Health have spoiled that now, because they obviously have a different

approach.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond for a few minutes to

the points raised in this petition and to respond to the comments made by members

opposite.

It is worth bearing in mind, it is worth repeating, that government has

negotiated with thirty bargaining units, settling contracts with 30,000 individuals who

work for the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador in one capacity or another, and

every single contract in question has been settled at the bargaining table. That is what

we want to see here. We want to see this matter settled at the bargaining table and that

is why we have not taken any action -

[There is a disturbance in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess briefly until the galleries are cleared.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the matters raised in

the petition by the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Ferryland, in commenting on the

thirty units, representing more than 30,000 people who have settled, scoffed at the

settlements. He said: Ask the people involved whether they are happy.

Of course, nobody is happy to get 7 per cent if they think they can get

more, but -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I did not

scoff at any settlement. The Premier is inaccurate in that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the record of the House will show, and

the tape will show, that the member said: Ask them if they are happy.

Mr. Speaker, the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Of course everybody would like more than they have

settled for. The question for the member opposite is this. Is it the position of the

Official Opposition, and is this the position of the Leader of the NDP, that the 30,000

public servants who settled in a collective bargaining progress and ratified 7 per cent

should live with 7 per cent for the remainder of the contract, but that government should

give more than 7 per cent, for example, to nurses?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER TOBIN: By leave.

Is that the position? Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the position of the

Leader of the NDP and the Member for Ferryland that NAPE should live with 7 per cent and

not be given more than 7 per cent, but that other units which bargained later should get

more than 7 per cent. That appears to be the position of members opposite. That those who

signed early are saddled with 7 per cent; those who signed later should get more.

I want to ask both the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Ferryland,

how much more? Can he give us advice? Because I want to tell the members opposite

something. Every 1 per cent more in salary for the public service is $17 million annually.

If we are going to give, let's say, 10 per cent to one bargaining unit, and we are going

to offer it to all bargaining units, that is $51 million. If we are going to give another

7 per cent over and above the 7 per cent for a total of 14 per cent, let's say to the

nurses, that is $119 million annually for the entire public service.

I think it is fair of government to ask the Leader of the NDP and the

Member for Ferryland: Is that what is being advocated? Raising everybody's salaries? If

so, by how much? Or saddling those who settled earlier, in good faith, with their

contracts, meanwhile giving a special bonus to those who have come later? Which is it? I

will tell you, many people will be waiting for an answer today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on a petition.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite clear that not only does the Premier not have any respect

for the collective bargaining process, he does not understand it. How much should they

get? Let's put it to binding arbitration and let an arbitrator decide how much they

deserve to get, based on all of the circumstances that are at risk, the same as the RNC

did through an arbitration award.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about NAPE?

MR. HARRIS: What about NAPE? I will tell you something, Mr.

Speaker. If NAPE knew the true financial position of the Province, which was not disclosed

to them a year ago, they would never have settled for 7 per cent last June like they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: It is bargaining in bad faith by this government to

seek to impose that on every bargaining unit of the Province. It is bargaining in bad

faith. Put it to bargaining arbitration, let an arbitrator decide what the different

circumstances are.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the nurses in this Province, they have

increased the requirements. The new nurses now have to have a bachelor's degree in

nursing, not a three-year diploma like they did before. They have increased the standards,

they have increased the workload. Several years ago, the ratio of nurses to patients was

twelve nurses for thirty-six patients. That is now down to eight nurses. Those patients

are sicker because the more well patients have been discharged. They have a tougher job,

they have different circumstances, their workload has changed. All of that has to be taken

into consideration in determining a proper wage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The circumstances of each bargaining unit is different

and that is why you have separate bargaining units, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: If they were all the same, you would have only one

bargaining unit and you could negotiate with them all!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question. We sought the leave

of the House to allow the Leader of the NDP to answer the question. He has now given

somewhat of an answer. I would like to finish I think the minute or two I have left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: I ask for leave to defer. Mr. Speaker, let the

record show -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had leave from members

opposite.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: I didn't?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

I just want to remind members who present petitions in the House that

we have ruled on a number of occasions that petitions ought to be in a particular form.

There is a standard form for petitions. To ensure that petitions are not rejected by the

House we have asked that members, when they intend to present petitions to the House,

clear their petition with the Table officers before presenting it in the House.

I understand that practice was carried out for a while, but members are

now ignoring that practice. I ask them in the future that when they present petitions to

the House they should clear these petitions with the Table officers, and if they are not

in the right form to make sure that they are in the correct form.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in

Legislative session convened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it's a real petition. It reads:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.

Whereas

Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved

approximately twenty-five years ago;

whereas this

section of Route 235 is in such a

terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving

schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over this road very

difficult; wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

upgrade and pave the five kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

This is another petition, I might add, on the same

section of roadway,

on Route 235, leading from the communities of Upper, Middle and Lower Amherst Cove,

Newmans Cove, Birchy Cove, down to Bonavista. It is a

section of road that students travel

over every day to the schools in Bonavista. It is probably one of the worst sections of

road on the Bonavista Peninsula.

Just a couple of weeks ago I had the Deputy Minister and the Assistant

Deputy Minister of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation down to travel

over this

section of roadway to see first-hand what the people there are complaining about

and what they are concerned about.

Following that trip over the road we went back to Newmans Cove and held

a public meeting and allowed the residents of the area, as well as some students that were

present, to voice their concerns and their frustrations to the decision makers. At that

particular meeting, as well as the residents and parents, I might add, from Newmans Cove,

Birchy Cove, and the three Amherst Coves, were the Principal of Matthew Elementary in

Bonavista, and some of the bus owner operators that made the trip, left their workplace,

to come and attend this meeting because it was such a concern to the students that they

either carry or teach on a daily basis.

What those people are looking for is not unrealistic. They are not

saying they want the roads paved all the way if it does not need to be paved. There is a

section of this roadway which has deteriorated into a condition that is much worse that

another

section of the same roadway. What the residents are saying is: Look, government,

if you can do half of this area, the 2.5 kilometres that has deteriorated to a condition

that it needs immediate repair, if you can do that now then that will help satisfy our

needs.

You drive through the communities of Upper Amherst Cove, Middle Amherst

Cove, Birchy Cove, and you will find that the road is probably in worse condition that

this

section of roadway. It is worse but it is not as busy an area, I say to the members

opposite.

I say to members opposite, the parents and the residents have put all

of that aside. They have come out and said that, if we are going to get some road work

done, this is the

section of road work that we need to have done first. In fact, this

section of road was put forward as a priority at least three years ago. Then in 1997, when

there was some road work being done in the area, they thought they were going to get it

done at that time; because the whole area, as you know, came under the eyes of the world

when there were so many people travelling to and from Bonavista. The way that most

tourists go down on the Peninsula, they go down Route 230 and come up Route 235, or vice

versa.

This piece of roadway that we are talking about is a well-travelled

route, it is a well-travelled route by people having to go to Bonavista in order to access

government services. It is travelled by people who have to go to Bonavista in order to

visit the health care institution there, or the Golden Heights Manor to see a doctor; but,

most important of all, it is a route that has to be travelled on a daily basis by students

attending the high school and the elementary school in Bonavista itself.

In years gone by, we closed schools in those areas and parents did not

object. As much as they did not like the idea, they did not object because they knew that

their children were going to be given a better education and be exposed to newer

opportunities by going to the bigger school in the bigger centre, which was Bonavista.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The mon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: The least we can do now, Mr. Speaker, is to provide

those students with a decent road to travel over on their route to and from their school

in Bonavista. That is all they are asking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: They are not asking for anything that other people

do not have. They are just making a plea to have this particular roadway upgraded and

paved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FUREY: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

I move the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad to rise today to make two comments on Interim Supply.

Actually, I am going to pick up today where I left off yesterday on the private member's

motion, just to make a few comments, because there were a few things I left out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I was nice yesterday, I tell the Premier. Ask the

minister.

I would like to finish off with a few comments I did not get the chance

to finish on the private member's motion, especially - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the minister, in light of the latest news

reports by the IFAW, and the confrontations they had just a couple of days ago, the

attempt by the IFAW is still to discredit the sealing industry in this Province and in

Atlantic Canada. With the private member's motion put forward yesterday, there is not a

better time in this Province to put forward a unified front to take on this whole issue of

the sealing industry and what is happening right now, because it is time to act now. It

will be no good even a month from now, not even two months from now, especially when they

go on the attack or make a scene like they did yesterday with the IFAW and so on. It is

time to counterattack with that. Every time they speak, we should counterattack in some

form. It depends on the form we use, but it always should be used.

I believe that motion yesterday should be acted upon quickly and that

we should get to Ottawa, hopefully with the Premier's support and the support of the

minister. I know the minister will be there. I am not sure about the Premier, if he will

be there to support this particular initiative so that we have a unified front in this

Province of people who bring the message to Ottawa in as far as the sealing industry goes.

There has never been a more important time in this Province, especially

in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we could use some kind of economic

revival and renewal. That is another issue of this Province where people are starting to

ask questions of rural renewal, what benefits and so on.

When we talk about strategic plans, I have been with the REDB boards; I

have sat and talked with them. They have some great ideas, some good people working on

those boards, and now we have to see the real results, the results of the strategies.

As a former coach, having been involved with teams over the years,

anybody can tell you that the best play in the world, or the best plan in the world, is no

good unless you can execute that plan.

We are getting into a time in this Province where something is going to

have to happen pretty soon. Yes, it is okay to stand every now and then and talk about the

Voisey's Bays of the world, the Lower Churchills, and how great Hibernia is doing. Nobody

is fooled in this Province, either, when they get reports from the Bank of Montreal, the

Royal Bank and so on, talking about the great economic growth that is happening in

Newfoundland and Labrador. They are talking about dollars and cents that are being floated

through their bonds. That is what they are talking about. They are talking about the money

that is flowing through their banks, when they talk about economic growth in this

Province. What the people of the Province want to see is the real numbers.

When we think about some 11,000 people indirectly employed today - as

we speak today and over the next few days, as a matter of fact -coming off those lines,

those statistics will not hold water anymore because the true numbers will have to come

out; the true numbers of the people in this Province, some 11,000 people who are now

employed either directly or indirectly through the FRAM projects. The right word for it is

make-work projects.

What the people in this Province are really looking for is what is

going to happen long term. What happens in May and June when you have people in their late

forties, early fifties, with families here, with their homes here? Where are they going to

turn for the future? That is what everybody is concerned about in this Province.

We talk about rural renewal. I am sure that over the next few days

before this House adjourns for its Easter break, we will get some chance to ask the

minister - the acting minister, probably, at this stage, or maybe the minister later on -

about the plans after that, and where we go from there.

People in this Province are tired of the rhetoric, of hearing all about

Hibernia, seeing the big rig flashed every day on the screen. I am going to tell you that

the people in Ming's Bight and Fleur de Lys are not seeing any results of what is

happening with that rig, in that part of the Province.

It is good to talk about it, yes. Those are the economic circumstances

for this Province that are going to help us down the road, but they need to see real jobs

and they need to see real jobs now.

Our health care system - what can you say when we talk about what is

happening with the mood and morale and so on? Without getting into the detail of what is

happening with the negotiations, which everybody wants to avoid today - it seems we want

to avoid the details - we can still talk about it in general. The health care system in

this Province is in chaos. There are problems that have been coming for a long time; it is

not just this strike. The downplay in the health care system is not because of the strike.

The strike is there because of the failing health care system in the first place. That is

our problem.

When we talk about education reform in this Province, no matter where

you go, no matter who you talk to, they say they voted for education reform and they voted

for a better system. With what we see now in the school system, with the decreased number

of teachers - you can spin it anyway you want, but the ratio that they used in this

Province was archaic. The whole formula that they used for allocation of teachers in this

Province should not be there. It should be revamped so it really carries the true picture

of how many teachers we really need in this Province to make sure that good education is

provided to our young people. That is what we should be looking at.

I fear, especially as a former phys. ed teacher, that what we are going

to see next year is that phys. ed programs, music programs, all those extras, especially

at rural Newfoundland schools, are moved out of the schools.

The real buzz word of the education reform, which is a better school

system for everybody, is going to be questionable. We are going to really find out if the

resources are better, if the teacher ratio is better. That is what we are afraid to find

out. A lot of people in this Province are coming to realize that what they voted for and

what they are actually going to get are two different stories. That is why we should be

very careful. People will not accept the education reform if it does not lend to that.

Like the nurses on the front line, the teachers in this Province are

the front line. We can talk about bigger schools, bigger gymnasiums, better computers, but

the teacher ratio, especially in the smaller schools around our rural Newfoundland areas,

are going to need the resource of the teacher, the front-line worker who is going to have

to be able do the work. Especially with technology and so on these days, we still need the

professionals who are going to do that one-on-one when it comes to special needs and in

other parts of the school system which need so much attention these days.

Our fiscal position - some notes I have here on municipalities. There

is a small gain back for some communities this year on MOGs, but there are so many. The

last numbers I heard from the latest minister was that there were some 100-110 communities

near bankruptcy in this Province. Where are they going when they cannot get decent water

and sewer and roads built? They are looking at infrastructure, basic necessities. They are

not looking for four-lane highways. They are not looking for extravagant measures. They

are looking for the basic necessities of living in this Province: health care, road

system, and a decent educational system. That is what they want. That is what they have

been looking for, for a long, long time. It is government's responsibility.

The joke of the Budget, if you speak to any of the seniors on the

pension, if you make $12,000 or less you are going to come out with a $200 exemption. That

is a lot to stick in somebody's pocket. I think the calculation done by the House Leader

was some $3.86 per person a week. Is that what it is?

MR. GRIMES: Do you want to cancel it?

MR. SHELLEY: No, I want it increased.

MR. GRIMES: You don't want to cancel it?

MR. SHELLEY: No. Make sure you get that straight now because I find

that the Minister of Mines and Energy tries to twist things. He never finishes a sentence.

He always cuts it off right there, puts in the big exclamation mark, and that is the end

of it. That is how the Minister of Mines always likes to put it. He never likes to finish

it. Yes, I like it, $3.86 a week. It should be able to get you a litre of milk. What I am

saying is that it should be something significant, not something token.

That is like the wage increase. Do I like the wage increase?

Absolutely. It should be more, something significant, at least fifty cents; maybe all the

savings from Trans City that we threw away. Maybe we can do all that list - down through

the list - of the waste in the last eight or nine years. That is what we should talk

about. Maybe that is what we should do, start the big list. Trans City, how much of that -

what was the price?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Sprung? Sprung is starting to look good compared to

what you fellows have been doing. Sprung is starting to look good.

MR. SULLIVAN: Paul, by the time it is paid off it will have cost us

over $30 million (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Over $30 million in mistakes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the hon member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to talk on Interim

Supply.

First of all, as I address the House, I am certainly honoured to have

taken my place in this House to represent the District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I do

fully realize that I have a responsibility entrusted to me by my constituents. I certainly

appreciate their vote of confidence in me, and I hope that I will have the ability to

represent them and to bring forth their concerns to this House as I complete my term.

The District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne certainly is a large district

comprised of many different communities from North Arm in Holyrood down to North River,

and on into Brigus Junction and Whitbourne.

Certainly during my election campaign, which was the first one, I had

my eyes opened as to the concerns of my district. Once again, I bring to this House many,

many concerns that I hope will be addressed as we go about our business. I take this time

to compliment the people who got behind me, in particular my workers. They deserve my

greatest appreciation because certainly they were the ones that put together a good

campaign - and it was a good campaign. I would like to also take this opportunity to

compliment my Liberal and NDP opponents who certainly fought a good campaign. They

certainly deserve my thanks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Minister of Fisheries down in your district?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, as a matter of fact, he is my neighbour.

When I look at what I have brought to the House myself, being involved

in education this past forty years, if you include the time that I spent in the system, I

have been very proud, I must say, of what the Province has done for me with regard to

education. The opportunities that this education system gave me were certainly beyond

belief. I was able to stay in the Province, and I could be whatever I wanted to be. Again,

my appreciation to the system for that.

When I entered the House, I brought forth a voice to the House that I

hope will bring forth the many concerns of education. Being an educator for the last

twenty-two years certainly would help me in articulating what it is that needs to be done

to make sure that our graduates, as they enter the twenty-first century, are able to

compete on not only the job markets here in Newfoundland and Labrador but certainly the

job markets in the rest of Canada and indeed on the national scene.

The educational restructuring that is currently ongoing will be our

main focus, as it has been the main focus, I suppose, over the last ten years or so, as an

attempt has been made by the Province to move forward with regard to that particular

agenda.

Again, the Williams report, which I suppose brought in the educational

reform or at least gave the blueprint of what needs to be done to address the various

needs of the students of this particular Province, certainly set the tone of what is

required.

I have to say that initially the tone that was set was indeed a very

positive one, as we looked at neighbourhood schools, as we looked at a good teacher-pupil

ratio, as we looked at addressing the needs of a changing society as we move forward.

As we get into restructuring today, which is many years later, we find

that this is certainly not what it was intended to be. There are any number of parents in

this Province and any number of students in this Province who are not happy with the way

educational restructuring has come about.

The consultation that was supposed to be so open with regard to the

educational restructuring, has not panned out as many people had wanted it to pan out.

Many of the parents, many of the investors in education today, are saying basically that

what they had voted for in the referendum was certainly not what they bargained for, and

certainly not what they have gotten.

We have throughout this Province very real needs with regard to the

education system, and these real needs need to be addressed as we certainly move forward.

I personally have experienced the tremendous upheaval that can happen

when a school is closed down. Being a part of that process, I can really appreciate what

it feels like to see a school that is a primer school, a school that had graduates

stretching back to 1973, a school that had all the hallmarks of what it meant to be a very

positive school, to find that the educational restructuring would close such a school

community would certainly be one of the most difficult times of any educator's life.

The school closings that are happening now would certainly remind me of

the difficulties that many parents and students are experiencing these days as the

restructuring takes place.

Again, we all know that restructuring perhaps has to happen, but it

does not have to happen in the manner in which it has occurred. There is certainly too

much pain, too much sacrifice, for the students and the parents as they go through this

particular time.

Many people hold up the aspect of closing schools as perhaps the most

difficult of this particular restructuring, but I say to those people that it is not

necessarily the closing down of schools that is creating a crisis now in our education

system; it is the inability to action a lot of the positive programming that should be

actioned at this particular time in order to bring forth the promise of the Williams

report of the 1990s. Again, I say that the education system in Newfoundland is in need of

adjustment. It is in need of some very positive initiatives.

When I look at the Budget as it came down, I am very disappointed that

once again the education needs of this Province are certainly not being addressed. With

adding just simply fifteen teaching positions at a very difficult time in this

restructuring, that does not - and I say does not - certainly address the particular need.

The student-teacher ratio, without a doubt, is misleading. It includes

non-teaching positions. It fails to account for the rural spread of this Province, and it

fails to factor in many of the nest schools. This teacher-pupil ratio certainly does not

add to the positive moving forward of this particular restructuring.

Again, in looking at the situation, I have to say that the rights of

the parents and the rights of the students certainly need to be put front and centre. The

consultation processes that have been going on throughout the Province have not always

been what they should have been. Many decisions have been made without the support and

without the proper consultation with the parents.

Again, we hope - or at least I hope - to be given another opportunity

to speak on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, from travelling in the district during

the election, I got to meet some of the farmers in the area and they are doing an

excellent job in their field of work. They let me know that there are a lot of problems in

their industry. From looking at their operations, I could see the problems that were there

and the support they are not getting in respect to crop specialists.

A couple of years ago the crop specialist in Central Newfoundland, his

job was taken away. Now they are depending on crop specialists from the East Coast coming

out and looking at the problems they have. I don't think that is acceptable. I think these

farmers in Central Newfoundland should have a fair chance and access to a crop specialist

on a readily available basis the same as anywhere else on the Island. I don't think they

should have that burden on them to get people to come out from the East Coast when there

are four crop specialists in this area of the Island and not one in Central Newfoundland.

In the silviculture program, I noticed in the Budget $12 million to be

spent in that program and only $4.5 million being allocated by the provincial government.

I don't think that is adequate to address the problems in silviculture in this Province

today. I think that silviculture is one way we could replace a lot of the jobs that are

being lost through technology and other ways that paper companies and independent

companies are taking away jobs through the introduction of mechanical harvesters.

I think that we as a government must introduce new technologies in the

field to retrain these loggers and for logging operations to get more involved in the

silviculture programs. There are a lot of ways these loggers can be trained, especially

when it comes to firefighting techniques and forest technology that has been introduced

over the last few years. We could retrain loggers to address some of these problems and to

work in that field.

Loggers and small family operators in the sawmill industry need more

access to the hardwood timber on Crown lands. They are fast running out of the resource.

They are finding they are in a bad predicament, where they do not have enough of the

resource to harvest and put into their sawmills to keep the jobs going that are there now.

They are quite worried that this summer could be a summer they would have to lay off a lot

of people. A lot of these people will be moving to other provinces. We have to make sure

that does not happen this summer.

I'm getting a lot of calls from people in the district concerning the

road situation in the Green Bay South area. The road between Robert's Arm and South Brook

is in deplorable condition. I think something has to be done in the near future to address

that problem. Also, the gravel road between Pilley's Island and the ferry going to Long

Island needs to be addressed. It is not acceptable to have that

section of gravel road in

this day and age. That road should be paved, and I think this government's responsibility

is there to make sure that road is taken care of and that paving will take place this

summer.

There are a lot of issues in the environment in Central Newfoundland

that concern me. We have an incinerator in our area that is certainly run down and not

efficient. It is located really near our water supply. There is a lot of concern out there

that contaminates, chemicals, are going into our water supply. I think it is the

Department of Environment's responsibility to go in there and do studies on our water

supply and our environment in the New Bay Road area, to assure the people of that area

that if things are not safe then something will be done in the near future. I think that

government has that responsibility to make sure that happens.

I got a call only today from a concerned citizen in Grand

Falls-Windsor. He was very concerned about an oil spill that happened over the weekend. He

called council and council came out and looked at the situation. They said there was

nothing they could do but call Environment. A member from the Department of Environment

came out there and said: I'm not qualified to make a decision on what should be done in

this respect. You will have to call back Monday.

Now, these people were concerned. They were not sure if it was oil or

some other type of chemical contaminates that could endanger their lives. These people

went through a terrible weekend just thinking that this smell coming in through their

sewers and basements could hurt them and hurt their health. They were very concerned about

it. I think Central Newfoundland has been neglected when it comes to specialist and people

in the fields who could address problems concerning our environment and concerning our

industries in that area. We need more input from government into Central Newfoundland,

particularly the Grand Falls-Windsor area.

A lot of seniors in the Grand Falls-Windsor area are calling me,

concerned that fees have been going up throughout the Central Newfoundland area. They

realize the taxes did not go up but they certainly know that costs are going up. Where

they are on fixed incomes and they do not have access to extra dollars, and their age does

not permit them to make extra dollars, they are concerned that they are not going to be

able to maintain the standard of life they now have. They are worried that in the near

future they are going to have to move away into less adequate accommodations because they

cannot afford to pay the necessary taxes, fees, and the increased cost of living. Two

hundred dollars a year is certainly not going to address their problems.

I think that in the municipal infrastructure programs there must be

more money given to the smaller communities so that they do not have to put this extra

burden on the people and the residents of these communities.

I hope in the near future that someone does listen to all these

problems that are in our smaller communities. They have to be addressed. I will be

lobbying for these people, and I hope that government does do something in the near future

to help the seniors and the desperate people in our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Premier Tobin said Saturday: I have been convinced, putting aside the

other issues for the negotiators, that the staffing issues need to be addressed. It is one

that I intend to intervene on personally. He further said: You cannot have stressed out

people working double shifts, being called back on short notice, burnt out, running and

operating within the system. If I were confronted by a bunch of demonstrators who were

making a point that I thought wasn't legitimate, or wasn't valid, I would argue the point.

I would debate the point. I can't argue when the nurses say the health care system is

underfunded.

That Saturday I refer to is Saturday, February 7, 1999, two days before

the general election when our Premier misled the nurses of this Province by telling them

he would intervene on their behalf. He said: I will personally intervene to ensure that

staffing needs are addressed. You cannot have stressed out people working double shifts,

et cetera.

Here we have a premier who, two days before the election, said he would

personally intervene and now today in this House of Assembly, in the people's House, is

accusing us of trying to get him to intervene.

I have had calls, faxes and letters from nurses. These nurses are

stressed out with the situation they find themselves in. I will quote from some of them

here now.

This is not from a nurse. On February 7, this is, once again, from the

Premier. It says: Brian Tobin says he is convinced there is a dire need to hire more

nurses across the Province. He won't commit to the number yet, but it will be higher than

the 125 positions that came in a contract offer last December.

Here he is saying there is a need to hire more nurses and today he is

saying that must take place at the negotiating table. Which Premier are we dealing with?

It is always a premier of convenience. Whatever is convenient for the Premier to say at

the time to schmooze the people to buy them off, that is the Premier that we see.

Here is a quote: On Premier Tobin's frenzied final day, Tobin meets the

ever present clutch of nurses and tells them that the Minister of Health is a nurse -

that's news - the Deputy Minister is a nurse, and every night he goes home to a nurse. He

tells the nurses they can trust him to handle their concerns over cutbacks to health care.

May I never need to put my trust in somebody like that. Premier Tobin

says he now has the money to improve the Province's health care system. I did not see it

in the Budget. I did not see the money for the nurses in the Budget. Here is a quote: He

says the new multi-billion dollar agreement signed in Ottawa yesterday will help ease the

stress on health care. Tobin also told a small group of nurses at the rally he will see

them at the bargaining table.

He did not commit to anything right there but the innuendo was loud and

clear. I will now paraphrase and quote some of the nurses from letters, e-mails and phone

calls that some have made to me, going back a couple of months: I am a registered nurse. I

have been employed with the provincial government for eighteen years. I am fortunate to

have been employed in a permanent position. But this is not the case for the many casual

nurses in our Province. They continue to work up to full-time hours with none of the

benefits.

Mr. Chairman, the nurses do not get the benefits of the pension and so

on like that, but the residuals of that are felt throughout our entire economy, because

when these professional people go to the bank for a mortgage, they cannot prove they are

working permanently, even though many of them have been working longer hours and more

full-time hours than the nurses who are actually permanent.

Some of the nurses have been working five years casual. They go to the

bank manager. They cannot prove they have a permanent job and therefore cannot get a

mortgage. Therefore, the economy there is suffering because they cannot get a mortgage; a

house is not sold. If a house is not sold then the furnishing, the carpets, the drapery

and the new furniture that goes into that house is not sold. A car is not sold and it

trickles right down into the economy; and we are wondering why people are leaving this

Province.

The average age of the nurses is forty-seven, and there are no new

nurses being hired. They are all going to the mainland or to the United States where they

are being offered much more lucrative packages.

These lucrative packages would exist even if we did make more permanent

positions, but at least we could offer these people permanent positions in their Province,

in their home, and the attraction to leave home would not be as great.

I have an e-mail here that came in on Monday, March 22. It is an e-mail

that was also, I guess, copied to the Minister of Health. It says: We are incensed that

you have not responded to our issues. We stress the word "our" because, as you

have constantly reminded us, you are still one of us; you are a nurse. In your former role

as the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, need we remind you that

you were crying out for exactly the same issues. We are also confident that you are fully

aware of the looming nursing shortage and, as such, you should be concerned about the

problems of recruitment and retention. Back in the early seventies, many of our hospitals

were staffed by nurses who were recruited from England and from the Philippines. The

crisis was so bad at that time, it was so critical, that our government had to recruit

nurses and not only pay them their salaries but also their transportation here, and in

many cases their accommodation as well.

I go on with the e-mail to the Minister of Health: In your current

position, you freely voiced your opinion on physicians' concerns. Now, more importantly,

you should be standing by us and supporting our fight to improve health care in this

Province.

With people who are not associated with the changes and the trends and

patterns of health care, many more people are accessing health care. The technology is

helping people live longer but then, conversely, as they live longer they need more

medical services.

Positive good health care - and I am not saying that the casual nurses

cannot do as good a job, but when they are on a maternity floor one night and a cardiac

floor the next night, it not as easy for them to give the same care because they are

moving about. They cannot guarantee that a critically ill patient will receive the

appropriate level of care with the expertise required if they continue to hire casual

nurses. That is one of the problems.

From there I will move to education. We will remember, in August and

September of 1997, there was a referendum here in the Province and the people were

promised optimum programming, neighbourhood schools, lower pupil-teacher ratios, and all

kinds of programs. In my District of St. John's West, the people believed. They believed

that they would get optimum programming; so 83 per cent of them voted for reform.

In my district there is a dire need for another school building and I

did not see in the Budget - although I did see that there would be some school buildings,

the needs of the people of St. John's West have not been addressed. The people of St.

John's West are being bused out of their community into other schools. There are over 800

of them going now. If the proposal goes ahead, as the Avalon East School Board has

proposed that it would, then over 1,000 people will be moving from the neighbourhood of

St. John's West into the centre of the city. This is a far cry from neighbourhood schools.

One of the schools that they will be going to presently has an enrolment - it is a good

school, it is I J Samson and it has wonderful programs at the moment. If the Avalon East

School Board proposal goes ahead the way it is planned, 140 or 160 more children will come

into that school. The capacity rating for that school is 500, and there will be 160 people

in the school more than there should be, which will mean that the rooms that are presently

being utilized for these good programs - the labs and the music rooms and so on - will

have to be taken for classrooms.

This is a far cry for what was promised. This is an insult to the

people who voted and, like I said, voted 83 per cent in the referendum. It is an insult to

them when they voted for optimum programming and lower class sizes. The class sizes will

be up to between thirty-one and thirty-five people instead of - I think the Throne Speech

touted that we would have 14.7 people in a classroom.

What I am saying is that the people of my district and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have not received what they have been promised before the

election, as far as the nurses are concerned, and as far as the seniors are concerned.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have been listening intently to the representations made here in

Interim Supply, and some very good points have been made. A number of the speakers today,

as well, have addressed some of the issues with respect to probably the most critical

issue in the Province today, which is the fact that we do have a withdrawal of services by

our nurses. The last speaker from St. John's West made some comments with respect to that,

as have other speakers. Earlier today, of course, the issue dominated Question Period and

so on.

There are a couple of things, and I think it is important that the

record should show the contributions that have been made here today. I would like to take

a couple of minutes to try to get them in the record of Hansard so we can read it all

tomorrow. I think, while there was some heckling going back and forth earlier on, there

were some very important points made.

I intend to certainly tell nurses in Central Newfoundland and Exploits

district, not only to represent my own views - they know what they are; that I am a member

of the Cabinet and a member of this government. I support what the government is doing,

and we are trying to negotiate a settlement for nurses at the bargaining table, as we have

done for 30,000 other public servants who have signed collective agreements through a

process that the government has respected and they have respected.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that has occurred in that - I am a

little puzzled by one of the representations made by the Leader of the New Democratic

Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, because he inferred and suggested there was

something wrong with the bargaining process that occurred with the RNC.

What we have to understand about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Association is that they bargained under a special piece of legislation that was put in

place by the party that is now the Official Opposition; not put in place by this

Administration, but put in place by the party that is now the Official Opposition.

They debated the issue, obviously, at the time, and discussed it with

the Constabulary Association and others, and felt that the best possible scenario by which

Constabulary officers should bargain in Newfoundland and Labrador was with a special law -

not the general Public Service Act, not normal broad-based labour legislation that applies

to unions out in the private sector, but with their own special piece of legislation. What

was enshrined in that piece of legislation, and is still there today, is that they will

have access to arbitration. The law which the Progressive Conservative government of the

day put in place, the law which we followed this time to a tee, and did not offend the

process in any way but did what we were entitled to under the law, just like the RNCA did

what they were entitled to under the law, the law that was decided to be in the best

interest of the RNC, their members and the people of the Province states that there will

be an arbitration process which is binding on the Constabulary but not binding on the

government.

The members opposite, who are the Official Opposition, debated that

issue, consulted with the public, consulted with the RNC, consulted and got legal advice,

consulted with the justice community, and they determined that that was the appropriate

mechanism for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.

What happened this time, Mr. Chairman, just like what happened three or

four times in the seventeen years that the Official Opposition was the government, an

arbitration process was triggered.

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The hon. minister is

right, that there was a process put in place, it was used. Part of the commitment made by

the Liberal government in 1991 is that they would extend to the RNC binding arbitration.

It forms part of the negotiated package.

I say to the hon. member that if he is going to tell the story, he

might as well tell the truth. He should not twist the truth, he should not deviate from

the truth, he should tell the absolute truth and do it consistently all the time. Tell the

whole story, I say to the minister.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that

intervention because it gets to the next point I was about to make.

The president of the RNCA again this week has made that point, that

this Administration in a round of bargaining did append a letter to the agreement saying

we would undertake to bring the notion of binding arbitration to the Legislature. He also

indicated that they had a similar letter appended to the collective agreement in 1986 when

the Progressive Conservative government bargained with them, and that they did nothing

about it in the last three years that they were in office. It was repeated again in 1991

because it was the same letter that the previous administration again had appended to the

agreement of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.

The fact of the matter is that they gave them a letter that said they

would think about changing it and they did not do it. We gave a letter through a previous

administration that said we would look at it, and we did not do it. I can tell you one

thing that is a little bit odd in this, and I know that it is an important point, that

while all the negotiating was going on leading up to the triggering of the arbitration,

which they are entitled to by their own collective bargaining act, nobody in the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary Association approached anybody in this House about: Are you

planning to bring in the legislation that you promised back in 1982?

The first time any of us heard about it was a letter from the legal

council for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association that mysteriously appeared in

my office in Bishop's Falls during the election. I had not heard of it in the seven years

from 1992 to 1999. I guess it was not that great an issue. It is convenient in a way that

it is an issue now.

I addressed members of the RNC outside this Legislature a few weeks

ago, I stopped and chatted with them, when they indicated to me that they had support for

their position from a union that I used to lead, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association. I said: Would you like to produce the letter that says you have the support

of the NLTA? Because, I asked, on what issue do you have their support? They said: On

getting our 14.5 per cent. I said: You please show me the document that says that the

current president of the NLTA will agree that the Constabulary should get 14.5 per cent

and we as teachers will not ask for another penny, and I will try to convince the members

of this particular caucus to give you 14.5 per cent.

No such letter has ever appeared. No such letter, I predict, will ever

appear, because it makes for good speeches but it does not solve anything. What this

government did was trigger its legal right under the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

collective bargaining legislation act that says, and has always said - members opposite

always used it when they were the government for seventeen years -, it said: It is binding

on the Constabulary, it is not binding on the government. We did just like the members

opposite did on three, if not four, occasions. We altered the award because it was not

within the fiscal capability of the government to pay the increased compensation.

Because the point was made again today, and we need to be reminded that

every single per cent - unless they believe, which is the other point I want to get to,

and if I run out in this short intervention I might even try to get up and make the point

a little later - every single percentage point is $17 million. The constabulary

arbitration suggested 14.5 per cent, so another 7.5 per cent. Now you are at more than

$100 million annually. Unless the position of the members opposite - which I am going to

try to clarify - is that they will present and will defend the position that the

constabulary should get 14.5 per cent and all the rest that signed shouldn't get any more

than 7 per cent.

I contend that that is what I heard in this Legislature today from the

Member for Ferryland. I definitely heard it from the Member for Ferryland. Not about the

Constabulary, because he is after forgetting about them, conveniently. He is not concerned

about them anymore. He doesn't talk about them anymore because there is bigger fish to fry

now. We have nurses on strike.

He clearly stated, when asked, that he believes nurses deserve more

than 7 per cent. Absolutely, that is the position. We can only assume, because he speaks

for health care issues on behalf of the Official Opposition, that that is the official

position of the Official Opposition. It must be, because their designated, publicly stated

critic for the issue has said in the Legislature, on the record, that nurses deserve more

than 7 per cent.

The question that was then asked was: Does he believe that everybody

else should get just the 7 per cent? Because we said our position is clear. We really

firmly believe that if we are going to give more than 7 per cent to any one group we

should give it to all of them. That is the position of the Liberal Government in

Newfoundland and Labrador today. So unless that is different from or different than - I

teach, but I can understand this mathematics.

The official critic for health care matters for the Official Opposition

has stated the position of the Progressive Conservative Official Opposition in

Newfoundland and Labrador, in the Legislature, on the record, that nurses should get more

than 7 per cent. Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: By leave, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of hours' leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: I know they are enjoying this. I will get to the

conclusion, Mr. Chairman, by leave. I understand they have graciously granted leave.

The whole point is this. He also then stated when asked: Do you believe

everybody else should get more than 7 per cent?, he said: I did not say that. Which means

that he believes they should not get more than 7 per cent. So the Official Opposition

position is: Nurses should get more than 7 per cent. Everybody else should stay at 7 per

cent. I would like Hansard to clearly show that as the official position of the Official

Opposition on this issue so we can send it to NAPE, send it to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association, and all of the other bargaining units: CUPE, NAPE and

others. The 30,000 people who have already signed for 7 per cent will be pleased to know

that the official position of the Opposition is that nurses should get more and they

should stay at 7 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before recognizing the next speaker, it being Thursday and 4:00 p.m. I

have to announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question for the Late Show this afternoon is: I am

dissatisfied with the answers provided by the President of Treasury Board, re RNC

negotiations. That is from the Member for Waterford Valley.

The second question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by

the Premier re my question on school reorganization in St. John's West. That is from the

Member for St. John's West.

The third question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by

the Premier re my question on the hiring of nurses. That is from the Member for Ferryland.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to stand today and respond to the vicious attack - I say, the

vicious attack - by the Minister of Mines and Energy on the hon. Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. MANNING: Shame. Especially when he is not here to defend

himself. He was not here to defend himself from the vicious attack by the hon. Minister of

Mines and Energy. It is a shame. He was trying to put words in the mouth of the hon.

Member for Ferryland. He is very well able to speak for himself and has spoken well for

health care in this Province over the past three or four years. He has brought forward the

major concerns that are in health care in this Province, and he has done a very good job.

It is a shame for the Minister of Mines and Energy to get up and have a vicious attack.

There is great concern here in this Province today as it relates to the

health care situation, and we see it here today in the gallery and out in the lobby of the

Confederation Building. Many people, nurses coming forward with many concerns that they

have. I have been on the phone over the past couple of day myself with nurses throughout

my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, who brought their concerns to me. They are not

only the concerns of the nurses; they are the concerns of every man, woman and child in

this Province.

I just got off the phone with a gentleman who was supposed to have

emergency surgery tomorrow morning, and it has been delayed until Monday morning.

We are at a point in this Province right now where we are trying to

figure out what is more of an emergency than something else. I think we have reached an

all-time low when it comes to health care and there are major, major concerns out there

throughout the whole Province.

I stand here today and listen to the Leader of the Opposition put

forward the questions to the Premier and to the Minister of Health as they relate to the

health care, and we are getting an aside answer, no real truth coming forward from the

hon. members on the other side. I think it is a shame we have so much concern in the

Province being raised by not only the nurses but indeed many other people throughout the

health care sector.

I would just like to say that the nurses are not only here representing

themselves; they are representing everybody throughout the Province. I think it is time

that health care became an major issue of this government; not lip service, but a general

major issue that this government will address over the next few days.

I think that everybody in the House is very concerned about the fact

that the nurses are on the street. I think it is to everybody's advantage that we get back

to the bargaining table and straighten out this mess before people's lives are lost and

something very dangerous happens.

I would also like to touch on a few things that were brought forward,

that have come up since the Budget on Monday, and some concerns that have been raised with

me as the member. One certainly has to do with the $200 so-called gift, the seniors'

benefit that this government brought forward and tried to say to the people of the

Province that this is a wonderful idea.

Very few people will qualify for even this paltry $200 that the

government has put forward. Very few people will qualify for that. As a matter of fact,

for the full benefit under $12,000, it comes out to $3.86 a week. That, I say to the hon.

members opposite, is what seniors will be putting into their pocket. That is only for

those who are under $12,000 limit.

What about the many other people who are going to be on a graduated

scale, who are going to end up with nothing? There are many seniors out in our districts

who are finding it very hard. They are on a fixed incomes. With rising prices, rising

costs of living, these seniors are on a fixed income. To have $3.86 a week given to them,

I do not think it is very fair and it is definitely not for the seniors' benefit, even

though that is what it is called. It is for the government to try to buy some time with

something that is very important, the seniors in this Province.

One thing that certainly concerned me also is the fact that we touched

on, from a business point of view, the payroll tax was brought up to $150,000. While it

gives some businesses an opportunity to not have to pay the payroll tax, there are many

businesses our there now that have enforced this, and I think this is a deterrent to

employment in many of our industries. I think it is something that the government should

look at. Certainly it is a step in the right direction, to phase this tax out, but I think

it is something that we should consider very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like touch on the fact that the minimum wage

was raised from $5.25 to $5.50 an hour. When I had the opportunity to sit in this House

from 1993 to 1996, I brought in a private member's bill and asked for the minimum wage to

be taken at that time from $4.75 up to $6.00 an hour. The government at that time agreed

to bring forward and raise the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour. It is up to $5.25, and now

it is going to be raised to $5.50.

The problem that I see with raising the minimum wage to $5.50 at this

present time is that it is not going to be raised until October. Most of the people,

especially students who are going to find employment during the summer months, are going

to be people who are going to be out working on job creation, whether it is sponsored by

the federal government or by the provincial government, such as the SWASP program and

other programs that are put place each and every year for the students of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, those students are going to be out there working for

$5.25 an hour. If government would bring in this as of April 1, and increase the minimum

wage to $5.50 an hour, we would have students who would be able to avail of this new

salary. Over the next few months, those students are not going to be able to have this

salary because it is not going to be in place until October 1. I think, for most

businesses now, it is an opportunity to put the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour. I think it

certainly should be done for the summer months, so that our students can avail of this

opportunity. That is certainly something, I think, that we should bring forward and make

sure that the government is cognizant of the fact that the students out there are finding

it very difficult to cope. This would be an opportunity to put some more dollars into

their pockets.

I would also like to touch on, if I could, the fact that in regards to

education, only fifteen more teaching positions are being provided, not the 236 figure

that the government arrived at by comparing it to the magnitude of the threatened cut. I

think it is kind of a mishmash with numbers when we say we are going to give this many and

then we take away so many others and we end up with a number that is really not relevant

and really not factual in regard to exactly what is going to be put in the classroom.

Mr. Chairman, this Province voted for reform last year. I say that the

people of Placentia & St. Mary's did not, but the rest of the people in the Province

did. They voted for reform because they believed that the money that would be saved by the

restructuring of education in the Province, the money that would be saved by the closing

of schools, the money that would be saved by the amalgamation of schools throughout the

Province, that this money would be directly put back into education in the Province, and

indeed, I guess, into the classrooms. That is mostly where parents and students and

teachers, I am sure, who voted for reform thought that the money saved would be going.

I think it is very important that we take education seriously, and that

the money saved through the reform in education is put back into the classrooms so we can

improve in our curriculum and indeed improve on the pupil-teacher ratio that we are

finding our Province in now.

There is no doubt about it, that the number of children going to school

in the Province today is much less than a few years ago because of out-migration. I will

talk about out-migration in a minute. We have a problem, and reform in education is

certainly welcome in many parts of the Province that see buses passing by schools and

buses passing through communities. I think it is an issue that we have to address. I think

it is very important that the money that we save because of addressing these issues goes

back into the classroom to provide a better education for these people.

I also want to touch on the fact that there is nothing in the Budget

that touched out-migration, which is a very major problem that we are facing in this

Province today. We lost 7,000 people in 1996, who left this Province; 9,000 people left in

1997, and 11,000 people left in 1998. That is almost 30,000 people less in this Province

today than were here in 1996, when this government came to power and promised a better

tomorrow.

I have to ask: Was the better tomorrow that was promised in 1996

delivered? I fear not, I say to the hon. members opposite. I think that you have led many

people down the garden path, and that we have a situation over the next few weeks where we

are going to have many people that are going to be forced to leave the Province again

because of the situation with the out-migration in the communities and the fact that our

fishery, in many cases, is not coming back on schedule.

Mr. Chairman, I say that these are only some of the issues that are

facing the people in Placentia & St. Mary's. There are many other issues. I would just

like to touch for a moment on one that has come to mind, and that is the one in regards to

the fact that in Placentia many people (inaudible) -

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to follow on a few comments, to try and make sure that